{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_51489/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_51489","id":"gutenberg_51489","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51489","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church history"],"text":"The Foreign Biblical Library.\n\n EDITED BY THE REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n\n _12 Volumes. Large crown 8vo. Price 7s. 6d. each._\n\n I. =Still Hours.=\n By RICHARD ROTHE. Translated by JANE T. STODDART. With an\n Introductory Essay by the Rev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A.\n\n II. =Biblical Commentary on the Book of Psalms.=\n By Professor FRANZ DELITZSCH, of Leipzig. From the latest\n edition specially revised by the Author. Translated by the\n Rev. DAVID EATON, M.A. In three Volumes.\n\n III. =A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament.=\n By BERNHARD WEISS. Translated by Miss DAVIDSON. _In 2 Vols._\n\n IV. =Church History.=\n By Professor KURTZ. Authorized Translation, from the latest\n Revised Edition, by the Rev. J. MACPHERSON, M.A. _In 3 Vols._\n\n V. =Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher.=\n Translated by MARY F. WILSON.\n\n VI. =A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah.=\n By Professor FRANZ DELITZSCH. Translated by the Rev. JAMES\n DENNEY, B.D. _In 2 Vols._\n\n LONDON: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n\n\n\n\n \u250c\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2510\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Transcriber\u2019s Notes \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Punctuation has been standardized. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 The Table of Contents has been updated to agree with the \u2502\n \u2502 headings and subheadings of the text. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 The \u2020 symbol next to a date was not defined in the text. It \u2502\n \u2502 appears to mean approximate year of death. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Non-printable characteristics have been given the following \u2502\n \u2502 transliteration: \u2502\n \u2502 Italic text: --> _text_ \u2502\n \u2502 bold text: --> =text=. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Italics have been dropped on leading alpha characters (a. b. \u2502\n \u2502 c.) to improved readability. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 This book was written in a period when many words had \u2502\n \u2502 not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have \u2502\n \u2502 multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in \u2502\n \u2502 the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated \u2502\n \u2502 with a Transcriber\u2019s Note. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Many names appear with multiple spelling variations. The \u2502\n \u2502 most common form used has been added in brackets following \u2502\n \u2502 alternate forms to facilitate document searching. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Latin words and quotations are regularly italicized in the \u2502\n \u2502 text. Italics have been added to words missed by the printer. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Footnotes are numbered consecutively through the 3 volumes \u2502\n \u2502 and are identified in the text with a number in brackets [2] \u2502\n \u2502 and have been accumulated in a single section at the end of \u2502\n \u2502 the text. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 Transcriber\u2019s Notes are used when making corrections to the \u2502\n \u2502 text or to provide additional information for the modern \u2502\n \u2502 reader. These notes are not identified in the text, but have \u2502\n \u2502 been accumulated in a single section at the end of the book. \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502\n \u2514\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2500\u2518\n\n\n\n\n CHURCH HISTORY.\n\n BY\n PROFESSOR KURTZ.\n\n\n _AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION FROM LATEST REVISED EDITION BY THE_\n REV. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A.\n\n\n IN THREE VOLUMES. VOL. I.\n\n\n _SECOND EDITION._\n\n\n London:\n HODDER AND STOUGHTON,\n 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.\n\n MDCCCXCI.\n\n\n\n\n BUTLER & TANNER,\n THE SELWOOD PRINTING WORKS,\n FROME, AND LONDON.\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\n\n The English reader is here presented with a translation of the ninth\nedition of a work which first appeared in 1849, and has obtained a most\ndistinguished place, it might be said almost a monopoly, as a text-book\nof Church History in the German Universities. Since 1850, when the\nsecond edition was issued, an English translation of which has been\nwidely used in Britain and America, Dr. Kurtz has given great attention\nto the improvement of his book. The increase of size has not been caused\nby wordy amplification, but by an urgent necessity felt by the author as\nhe used the vast materials that recent years have spread out before the\nhistorical student. In 1870 Dr. Kurtz retired from his professorship,\nand has conscientiously devoted himself to bring up each successive\nedition of his text-book to the point reached by the very latest\nscholarship of his own and other lands. In his Preface to the ninth\nedition of 1885 he claims to have made very special improvements on\nthe presentation of the history of the first three centuries, where\nample use is made of the brilliant researches of Harnack and other\ndistinguished scholars of the day.\n\n In the exercise of that discretion which has been allowed him, the\ntranslator has ventured upon an innovation, which he trusts will be\ngenerally recognised as a very important improvement. The German edition\nhas frequently pages devoted to the literature of the larger divisions,\nand a considerable space is thus occupied at the beginning of most of\nthe ordinary sections, as well as at the close of many of the sub-\nsections. The books named in these lists are almost exclusively German\nworks and articles that have appeared in German periodicals. Experience\nhas shown that the reproduction of such lists in an English edition is\nutterly useless to the ordinary student and extremely repulsive to the\nreader, as it seriously interferes with the continuity of the text. The\ntranslator has therefore ventured wholly to cancel these lists,\nsubstituting carefully selected standard English works known to himself\nfrom which detailed information on the subjects treated of in the\nseveral paragraphs may be obtained. These he has named in footnotes at\nthe places where such references seemed to be necessary and most likely\nto be useful. Those students who know German so thoroughly as to be able\nto refer to books and articles by German specialists will find no\ndifficulty in using the German edition of Kurtz, in which copious lists\nof such literature are given.\n\n The first English volume is a reproduction without retrenchment of the\noriginal; but in the second volume an endeavour has been made to render\nthe text-book more convenient and serviceable to British and American\nstudents by slightly abridging some of those paragraphs which give\nminute details of the Reformation work in various German provinces.\nBut even there care has been taken not to omit any fact of interest or\nimportance. No pains have been spared to give the English edition a form\nthat may entitle it to occupy that front rank among students\u2019 text-books\nof Church History which the original undoubtedly holds in Germany.\n\n JOHN MACPHERSON.\n\n FINDHORN, _July, 1888_.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n\n INTRODUCTION.\n\n \u00a7 1. IDEA AND TASK OF CHURCH HISTORY.\n\n \u00a7 2. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO CONTENTS.\n (1) The Various Branches Included in a Complete Course\n of Church History.\n (2) The Separate Branches of Church History.\n\n \u00a7 3. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO PERIODS.\n\n \u00a7 4. SOURCES AND AUXILIARIES OF CHURCH HISTORY.\n (1) Literature of the Sources.\n (2) Literature of the Auxiliary Sciences.\n\n \u00a7 5. HISTORY OF GENERAL CHURCH HISTORY.\n (1) Down to the Reformation.\n (2) The 16th and 17th Centuries.\n (3) The 18th Century.\n (4) The 19th Century.\n (5) The 19th Century--Continued.\n (6) The 19th Century--Continued.\n\n\n HISTORY OF THE PREPARATION FOR CHRISTIANITY.\n\n The pre-Christian World preparing the way\n of the Christian Church.\n\n \u00a7 6. THE STANDPOINT OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY.\n\n \u00a7 7. HEATHENISM.\n (1) The Religious Character of Heathenism.\n (2) The Moral Character of Heathenism.\n (3) The Intellectual Culture in Heathenism.\n (4) The Hellenic Philosophy.\n (5) The Heathen State.\n\n \u00a7 8. JUDAISM.\n (1) Judaism under special Training of God through the\n Law and Prophecy.\n (2) Judaism after the Cessation of Prophecy.\n (3) The Synagogues.\n (4) Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.\n\n \u00a7 9. SAMARITANISM.\n\n \u00a7 10. INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND HEATHENISM.\n (1) Influence of Heathenism upon Judaism.\n (2) Influence of Judaism upon Heathenism.\n\n \u00a7 11. THE FULNESS OF TIME.\n\n\n THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS.\n\n The Founding of the Church by Christ and His Apostles.\n\n \u00a7 12. CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS.\n\n\n I. THE LIFE OF JESUS.\n\n \u00a7 13. JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.\n (1) Year of Birth and Year of Death of Jesus.\n (2) Earliest Non-Biblical Witnesses to Christ.\n\n\n II. THE APOSTOLIC AGE.\n A.D. 30-70.\n\n \u00a7 14. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES BEFORE PAUL.\n Beginning and Close of Apostolic Age.\n\n \u00a7 15. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.\n Details of Paul\u2019s Life.\n\n \u00a7 16. THE OTHER APOSTLES AFTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.\n (1) The Roman Episcopate of Peter.\n (2) The Apostle John.\n (3) James, the brother of the Lord.\n (4) The Later Legends of the Apostles.\n\n \u00a7 17. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, AND DISCIPLINE.\n (1) The Charismata of the Apostolic Age.\n (2) The Constitution of the Mother Church at Jerusalem.\n (3) The Constitution of the Pauline Churches.\n (4) The Church in the Pauline Epistles.\n (5) Congregational and Spiritual Offices.\n (6) The Question about the Original Position of the\n Episcopate and Presbyterate.\n (7) Christian Worship.\n (8) Christian Life and Ecclesiastical Discipline.\n\n \u00a7 18. HERESIES IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.\n (1) Jewish Christianity and the Council of Apostles.\n (2) The Apostolic Basis of Doctrine.\n (3) False Teachers.\n\n\n\n\n FIRST DIVISION.\n\n History of the Development of the Church during the\n Gr\u00e6co-Roman and Gr\u00e6co-Byzantine Periods.\n\n \u00a7 19. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THOSE PERIODS.\n\n\n FIRST SECTION.\n\n History of the Gr\u00e6co-Roman Church during the\n Second and Third Centuries (A.D. 70-323).\n\n \u00a7 20. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES OF THIS PERIOD.\n (1) The Post-Apostolic Age.\n (2) The Age of the Old Catholic Church.\n (3) The Point of Transition from the One Age to the Other.\n\n\n I. THE RELATIONSHIP OF EXTRA-CHRISTIAN PAGANISM AND\n JUDAISM TO THE CHURCH.\n\n \u00a7 21. THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n \u00a7 22. PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.\n (1) Claudius, Nero and Domitian.\n (2) Trajan and Hadrian.\n (3) Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.\n (4) Septimius Severus and Maximinus Thrax.\n (5) Decius, Gallus and Valerian.\n (6) Diocletian and Galerius.\n (7) Maximinus Daza, Maxentius and Licinius.\n\n \u00a7 23. CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS OF PAGANISM.\n (1) Lucian\u2019s Satire _De Morte Peregrini_.\n (2) Worshippers of an Ass.\n (3) Polemic properly so-called.\n\n \u00a7 24. Attempted Reconstruction of Paganism.\n (1) Apollonius of Tyana.\n (2) Neo-platonism.\n\n \u00a7 25. Jewish and Samaritan Reaction.\n (1) Disciples of John.\n (2) The Samaritan Heresiarchs.\n a. Dositheus.\n b. Simon Magus.\n c. Menander.\n\n\n II. DANGER TO THE CHURCH FROM PAGAN AND JEWISH\n ELEMENTS WITHIN ITS OWN PALE.\n\n \u00a7 26. GNOSTICISM IN GENERAL.\n (1) Gnosticism.\n (2) The Problems of Gnostic Speculation.\n (3) Distribution.\n (4) Sources of Information.\n\n \u00a7 27. THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN GNOSTICISM.\n (1) Cerinthus.\n (2) The Gnosticism of Basilides.\n (3) Iren\u00e6us\u2019 Sketch of Basilideanism.\n (4) Valentinian Gnosticism.\n (5) Two Divisions of the Valentinian School.\n (6) The Ophites and related Sects.\n (7) The Gnosis of the Ophites.\n (8) Antinomian and Libertine Sects.\n a. The Nicolaitans.\n b. The Simonians.\n c. The Carpocratians.\n d. The Prodicians.\n (9) Saturninus.\n (10) Tatian and the Encratites.\n (11) Marcion and the Marcionites.\n (12) Marcion\u2019s Disciples.\n (13) Hermogenes.\n\n \u00a7 28. EBIONISM AND EBIONITIC GNOSTICISM.\n (1) Nazareans and Ebionites.\n (2) The Elkesaites.\n (3) The Pseudo-Clementine Series of Writings.\n a. Homili\u00e6 XX Clementis.\n b. Recognitiones Clementis.\n c. Epitom\u00e6.\n (4) The Pseudo-Clementine Doctrinal System.\n\n \u00a7 29. MANICH\u00c6ISM.\n (1) The Founder.\n (2) The System.\n (3) Constitution, Worship, and Missionarizing.\n\n\n III. THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT AND APOLOGETICAL\n ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.\n\n \u00a7 30. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC AGE,\n A.D. 70-170.\n (1) The Beginnings of Patristic Literature.\n (2) The Theology of the Post-Apostolic Age.\n (3) The so-called Apostolic Fathers.\n a. Clement of Rome.\n (4) b. Barnabas.\n c. Pastor Hermas.\n (5) d. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch.\n (6) e. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.\n f. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis.\n g. Epistle to Diognetus.\n (7) The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.\n (8) The Writings of the Earliest Christian Apologists.\n (9) Extant Writings of Apologists of the\n Post-Apostolic Age.\n a. Justin Martyr.\n (10) b. Tatian.\n c. Athenagoras.\n d. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch.\n e. Hermias.\n\n \u00a7 31. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE OLD CATHOLIC AGE,\n A.D. 170-323.\n (1) The Theological Schools and Tendencies.\n\n\n 1. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN GREEK.\n\n (2) Church Teachers of the Asiatic Type.\n a. Iren\u00e6us.\n (3) b. Hippolytus.\n (4) The Alexandrian Church Teachers.\n a. Pant\u00e6nus.\n b. Titus Flavius Clement.\n (5) c. Origen.\n (6) d. Dionysius of Alexandria.\n e. Gregory Thaumaturgus.\n f. Pamphilus.\n (7) Greek-speaking Church Teachers in other Quarters.\n a. Hegesippus.\n b. Caius of Rome.\n (8) c. Sextus Julius Africanus.\n (9) d. Methodius.\n e. Lucian of Samosata.\n\n\n 2. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN LATIN.\n\n (10) The Church Teachers of North Africa.\n Tertullian.\n (11) Cyprian.\n (12) Various Ecclesiastical Writers using the Latin Tongue.\n a. Minucius Felix.\n b. Commodus.\n c. Novatian.\n d. Arnobius.\n e. Victorinus of Pettau.\n f. Lucius Lactantius.\n\n \u00a7 32. THE APOCRYPHAL AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE.\n (1) Professedly Old Heathen Prophecies.\n (2) Old Testament Pseudepigraphs.\n a. Book of Enoch.\n b. Assumptio Mosis.\n c. Fourth Book of Ezra.\n d. Book of Jubilees.\n (3) Pseudepigraphs of Christian Origin.\n a. History of Assenath.\n b. The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.\n c. _Ascensio Isai\u00e6_ and _Visio Isai\u00e6_.\n d. _Spelunca thesaurorum._\n (4) New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphs.\n I. Apocryphal Gospels.\n (5) II. Apocryphal Histories and Legends of the Apostles.\n (6) ---- Apocryphal Monographs.\n (7) III. Apostolic Epistles.\n IV. Apocryphal Apocalypses.\n V. Apostolical Constitutions.\n (8) The Acts of the Martyrs.\n\n \u00a7 33. THE DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES OF THE OLD CATHOLIC AGE.\n (1) The Trinitarian Questions.\n (2) The Alogians.\n (3) The Theodotians and Artemonites.\n (4) Praxeas and Tertullian.\n (5) The No\u00ebtians and Hippolytus.\n (6) Beryllus and Origen.\n (7) Sabellius; Dionysius of Alexandria; Dionysius of Rome.\n (8) Paul of Samosata.\n (9) Chiliasm.\n\n\n IV. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, LIFE AND DISCIPLINE.\n\n \u00a7 34. THE INNER ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH.\n (1) The Continuation of Charismatic Endowments into\n Post-Apostolic Times.\n (2) The Development of the Episcopal Hierarchy.\n (3) The Regular Ecclesiastical Offices of the Old\n Catholic Age.\n (4) Clergy and Laity.\n (5) The Synods.\n (6) Personal and Epistolary Intercourse.\n (7) The Unity and Catholicity of the Church.\n (8) The Roman Primacy.\n\n \u00a7 35. THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM.\n (1) The Preparation for Receiving Baptism.\n (2) The Baptismal Formula.\n (3) The Administration of Baptism.\n (4) The Doctrine of Baptism.\n (5) The Controversy about Heretics\u2019 Baptism.\n\n \u00a7 36. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ITS VARIOUS PARTS.\n (1) The Agape.\n (2) The _Missa Catechumenorum_.\n (3) The _Missa Fidelium_.\n (4) The _Disciplina Arcani_.\n (5) The Doctrine of the Lord\u2019s Supper.\n (6) The Sacrificial Theory.\n (7) The Use of Scripture.\n (8) Formation of a New Testament Canon.\n (9) The Doctrine of Inspiration.\n (10) Hymnology.\n\n \u00a7 37. FEASTS AND FESTIVAL SEASONS.\n (1) The Festivals of the Christian Year.\n (2) The Paschal Controversies.\n (3) The Ecclesiastical Institution of Fasting.\n\n \u00a7 38. THE CHURCH BUILDINGS AND THE CATACOMBS.\n (1) The Catacombs.\n (2) The Antiquities of the Catacombs.\n (3) Pictorial Art and the Catacombs.\n (4) Pictorial and Artistic Representations.\n a. Significant Symbols.\n b. Allegorical Figures.\n c. Parabolic Figures.\n d. Historical Pictures of O. T. Types.\n e. Figures from the Gospel History.\n f. Liturgical Figures.\n\n \u00a7 39. LIFE, MANNERS, AND DISCIPLINE.\n (1) Christian Morals and Manners.\n (2) The Penitential Discipline.\n (3) Asceticism.\n (4) Paul of Thebes.\n (5) Beginning of Veneration of Martyrs.\n (6) Superstition.\n\n \u00a7 40. THE MONTANIST REFORMATION.\n (1) Montanism in Asia Minor.\n (2) Montanism at Rome.\n (3) Montanism in Proconsular Africa.\n (4) The Fundamental Principle of Montanism.\n (5) The Attitude of Montanism toward the Church.\n\n \u00a7 41. SCHISMATIC DIVISIONS IN THE CHURCH.\n (1) The Schism of Hippolytus at Rome about A.D. 220.\n (2) The Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage in A.D. 250.\n (3) The Schism of the Presbyter Novatian at Rome in\n A.D. 251.\n (4) The Schism of Meletius in Egypt in A.D. 306.\n\n\n SECOND SECTION.\n\n The History of the Gr\u00e6co-Roman Church from\n the 4th-7th centuries.\n A.D. 323-692.\n\n\n I. CHURCH AND STATE.\n\n \u00a7 42. THE OVERTHROW OF PAGANISM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.\n (1) The Romish Legend of the Baptism of Constantine.\n (2) Constantine the Great and his Sons.\n (3) Julian the Apostate (A.D. 361-363).\n (4) The Later Emperors.\n (5) Heathen Polemics and Apologetics.\n (6) The Religion of the Hypsistarians.\n\n \u00a7 43. THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.\n (1) The _Jus Circa Sacra_.\n (2) The Institution of \u0152cumenical Synods.\n (3) Canonical Ordinances.\n (4) Pseudepigraphic Church Ordinances.\n (5) The Apostolic Church Ordinances.\n\n\n II. MONASTICISM, CLERICALISM AND HIERARCHISM.\n\n \u00a7 44. MONASTICISM.\n (1) The Biography of St. Anthony.\n (2) The Origin of Christian Monasticism.\n (3) Oriental Monasticism.\n (4) Western Monasticism.\n (5) Institution of Nunneries.\n (6) Monastic Asceticism.\n (7) Anti-Ecclesiastical and Heretical Monasticism.\n\n \u00a7 45. THE CLERGY.\n (1) Training of the Clergy.\n (2) The Injunction of Celibacy.\n (3) Later Ecclesiastical Offices.\n (4) Church Property.\n\n \u00a7 46A. THE PATRIARCHAL CONSTITUTION AND THE PRIMACY.\n (1) The Patriarchal Constitution.\n (2) The Rivalry between Rome and Byzantium.\n\n \u00a7 46B. HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CHAIR AND ITS CLAIMS TO THE PRIMACY.\n (3) From Melchiades to Julius I., A.D. 310 to A.D. 352.\n (4) From Liberius to Anastasius, A.D. 352 to A.D. 402.\n (5) From Innocent I. to Zosimus, A.D. 402 to A.D. 418.\n (6) From Boniface I. to Sixtus III., A.D. 419 to A.D. 440.\n (7) From Leo the Great to Simplicius, A.D. 440 to A.D. 483.\n (8) From Felix III. to Boniface II., A.D. 483 to A.D. 532.\n (9) From John II. to Pelagius II., A.D. 532 to A.D. 590.\n (10) From Gregory I. to Boniface V., A.D. 590 to A.D. 625.\n (11) From Honorius I. to Gregory III., A.D. 625 to A.D. 741.\n\n\n III. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.\n\n \u00a7 47. THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND THEIR MOST CELEBRATED\n REPRESENTATIVES.\n (1) The Theological Schools and Tendencies.\n a. In the 4th and 5th centuries.\n b. Of the 6th and 7th Centuries.\n\n\n 1. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.\n\n (2) The Most Celebrated Representative of the Old\n Alexandrian School----Eusebius.\n (3) Church Fathers of the New Alexandrian School.\n a. Athanasius.\n (4) ---- The Three Great Cappadocians.\n b. Basil the Great.\n c. Gregory Nazianzen.\n d. Gregory of Nyssa.\n (5) e. Apollinaris.\n f. Didymus the Blind.\n (6) g. Macarius Magnes.\n h. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria.\n i. Isidore of Pelusium.\n (7) ---- Mystics and Philosophers.\n k. Macarius the Great or the Elder.\n l. Marcus Eremita.\n m. Synesius of Cyrene.\n n. Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa.\n o. \u00c6neas of Gaza.\n (8) The Antiocheans.\n a. Eusebius of Emesa.\n b. Diodorus of Tarsus.\n c. John of Antioch (Chrysostom).\n (9) d. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia.\n e. Polychronius, Bishop of Apamea.\n f. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus.\n (10) Other Teachers of the Greek Church during the 4th\n and 5th Centuries.\n a. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem.\n b. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis.\n c. Palladius.\n d. Nilus.\n (11) Greek Church Fathers of the 6th and 7th Centuries.\n a. Johannes Philoponus.\n b. Dionysius the Areopagite.\n (12) c. Leontius Byzantinus.\n d. Maximus Confessor.\n e. Johannes Climacus.\n f. Johannes Moschus.\n g. Anastasius Sinaita.\n (13) Syrian Church Fathers.\n a. Jacob of Nisibis.\n b. Aphraates.\n c. Ephraim the Syrian.\n d. Ibas, Bishop of Edessa.\n e. Jacob, Bishop of Edessa.\n\n\n 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH.\n\n (14) f. During the Period of the Arian Controversy.\n a. Jul. Firmicus Maternus.\n b. Lucifer of Calaris.\n c. Marius Victorinus.\n d. Hilary of Poitiers.\n e. Zeno, Bishop of Verona.\n f. Philaster, Bishop of Brescia.\n g. Martin of Tours.\n (15) g. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.\n h. Ambrosiaster.\n i. Pacianus, Bishop of Barcelona.\n (16) During the Period of Origenistic Controversy.\n a. Jerome.\n (17) b. Tyrannius Rufinus.\n c. Sulpicius Severus.\n d. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna.\n (18) The Hero of the Soteriological Controversy--Augustine.\n (19) Augustine\u2019s Works.\n a. Philosophical Treatises.\n b. Dogmatic Treatises.\n c. Controversial Treatises.\n d. Apologetical Treatises.\n e. Exegetical Works.\n (20) Augustine\u2019s Disciples and Friends.\n a. Paulinus, Deacon of Milan.\n b. Paul Orosius.\n c. Marius Mercator.\n d. Prosper Aquitanicus.\n e. C\u00e6sarius, Bishop of Arelate.\n f. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe.\n (21) Pelagians and semi-Pelagians.\n I. Pelagius.\n II. Semi-Pelagians or Massilians.\n a. Johannes Cassianus.\n b. Vincent Lerinensis.\n c. Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons.\n d. Salvianus, Presbyter at Marseilles.\n e. Faustus of Rhegium.\n f. Arnobius the Younger.\n (22) The Most Important Church Teachers among the Roman Popes.\n a. Leo the Great.\n b. Gelasius I.\n c. Gregory the Great.\n (23) The Conservators and Continuators of Patristic Culture.\n a. Bo\u00ebthius.\n b. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus.\n c. Dionysius Exiguus.\n\n \u00a7 48. BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN POETRY.\n (1) Exegetical Theology.\n (2) Historical Theology.\n (3) Systematic Theology.\n a. Apologetics.\n b. Polemics.\n c. Positive Dogmatics.\n d. Morals.\n (4) Practical Theology.\n (5) Christian Poetry.\n (6) Christian Latin Poetry.\n (7) Poetry of National Syrian Church.\n (8) The Legendary History of Cyprian.\n\n\n IV. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES AND HERESIES.\n\n \u00a7 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY.\n Heretical Developments.\n\n \u00a7 50. THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 318-381.\n (1) Preliminary Victory of the Homoousia, A.D. 318-325.\n (2) Victory of Eusebianism, A.D. 328-356.\n (3) Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357-361.\n (4) Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361-381.\n (5) The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362-381.\n (6) The Literature of the Controversy.\n (7) Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma.\n (8) Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy.\n I. The Meletian Schism at Antioch.\n II. The Schism of the Luciferians.\n III. The Schism of Damasus and Ursacius at Rome.\n\n \u00a7 51. THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 394-438.\n (1) The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts.\n (2) The Controversy in Palestine and Italy, A.D. 394-399.\n (3) The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople,\n A.D. 399-438.\n\n \u00a7 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.\n (1) The Apollinarian Controversy, A.D. 362-381.\n (2) Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools.\n (3) The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy, A.D. 428-444.\n (4) The Monophysite Controversy.\n I. Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451.\n (5) II. Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519.\n (6) III. Justinian\u2019s Decrees, A.D. 527-553.\n (7) IV. The Monophysite Churches.\n (8) The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.\n (9) The Case of Honorius.\n\n \u00a7 53. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 412-529.\n (1) Preliminary History.\n (2) The Doctrine of Augustine.\n (3) Pelagius and his Doctrine.\n (4) The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.\n (5) The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529.\n\n \u00a7 54. REAPPEARANCE AND REMODELLING OF EARLIER HERETICAL SECTS.\n (1) Manich\u00e6ism.\n (2) Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563.\n\n\n V. WORSHIP, LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.\n\n \u00a7 55. WORSHIP IN GENERAL.\n The Age of Cyril of Alexandria.\n\n \u00a7 56. FESTIVALS AND SEASONS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP.\n (1) The Weekly Cycle.\n (2) Hours and Quarterly Fasts.\n (3) The Reckoning of Easter.\n (4) The Easter Festivals.\n (5) The Christmas Festivals.\n (6) The Church Year.\n (7) The Church Fasts.\n\n \u00a7 57. WORSHIP OF SAINTS, RELICS AND IMAGES.\n (1) The Worship of Martyrs and Saints.\n (2) The Worship of Mary and Anna.\n (3) Worship of Angels.\n (4) Worship of Images.\n (5) Worship of Relics.\n (6) The Making of Pilgrimages.\n\n \u00a7 58. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.\n (1) Administration of Baptism.\n (2) The Doctrine of the Supper.\n (3) The Sacrifice of the Mass.\n (4) The Administration of the Lord\u2019s Supper.\n\n \u00a7 59. PUBLIC WORSHIP IN WORD AND SYMBOL.\n (1) The Holy Scriptures.\n (2) The Creeds of the Church.\n I. The Nic\u00e6no-Constantinopolitan Creed.\n II. The Apostles\u2019 Creed.\n III. The Athanasian Creed.\n (3) Bible Reading in Church and Preaching.\n (4) Hymnology.\n (5) Psalmody and Hymn Music.\n (6) The Liturgy.\n (7) Liturgical Vestments.\n (8) Symbolical Acts in Worship.\n (9) Processions.\n\n \u00a7 60. PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, BUILDINGS AND WORKS OF ART.\n (1) The Basilica.\n (2) Secular Basilicas.\n (3) The Cupola Style.\n (4) Accessory and Special Buildings.\n (5) Church furniture.\n (6) The Graphic and Plastic Arts.\n\n \u00a7 61. LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.\n (1) Church Discipline.\n (2) Christian Marriage.\n (3) Sickness, Death and Burial.\n (4) Purgatory and Masses for Souls.\n\n \u00a7 62. HERETICAL REFORMERS.\n (1) Audians and Apostolics.\n (2) Protests against Superstition and External Observances.\n (3) Protests against the Over-Estimation of Doctrine.\n\n \u00a7 63. SCHISMS.\n (1) The Donatist Schism, A.D. 311-415.\n (2) The _Concilium Quinisextum_, A.D. 692.\n\n\n VI. THE CHURCH OUTSIDE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.\n\n \u00a7 64. MISSIONARY OPERATIONS IN THE EAST.\n (1) The Ethiopic-Abyssinian Church.\n (2) The Persian Church.\n (3) The Armenian Church.\n (4) The Iberians.\n\n \u00a7 65. THE COUNTER-MISSION OF THE MOHAMMEDANS.\n (1) The Fundamental Principle of Islam.\n (2) The Providential Place of Islam.\n\n\n THIRD SECTION.\n\n HISTORY OF THE GR\u00c6CO-BYZANTINE CHURCH\n IN THE 8TH-15TH CENTURIES\n (A.D. 692-1453).\n\n\n I. Developments of the Greek Church in Combination\n with the Western.\n\n \u00a7 66. ICONOCLASM OF THE BYZANTINE CHURCH (A.D. 726-842).\n (1) Leo III., the Isaurian, A.D. 717-741.\n (2) Constantine V. A.D. 741-775.\n (3) Leo IV., Chazarus, A.D. 775-780.\n (4) Leo V., the Armenian, A.D. 813-820.\n\n \u00a7 67. DIVISION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN CHURCHES AND ATTEMPTS\n AT UNION, A.D. 857-1453.\n (1) Foundation of the Schism, A.D. 867.\n (2) Leo VI., the Philosopher, A.D. 886-911.\n (3) Completion of the Schism, A.D. 1054.\n (4) Attempts at Reunion.\n (5) Andronicus III. Pal\u00e6ologus and Barlaam.\n (6) Council of Florence.\n (7) Decay of Byzantine Empire.\n\n\n II. Developments in the Eastern Church without the\n Co-operation of the Western.\n\n \u00a7 68. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.\n (1) Revival of Classical Studies.\n (2) Aristotle and Plato.\n (3) Scholasticism and Mysticism.\n (4) The Branches of Theological Science.\n (5) Distinguished Theologians.\n (6) Barlaam and Josaphat.\n\n \u00a7 69. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE 12TH-14TH CENTURIES.\n (1) Dogmatic Questions.\n (2) The Hesychast Controversy, A.D. 1341-1351.\n\n \u00a7 70. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP AND LIFE.\n (1) The Arsenian Schism, A.D. 1262-1312.\n (2) Public Worship.\n (3) Monasticism.\n (4) Endeavours at Reformation.\n\n \u00a7 71. DUALISTIC HERETICS.\n (1) The Paulicians.\n (2) The Children of the Sun.\n (3) The Euchites.\n (4) The Bogomili.\n\n \u00a7 72. THE NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES OF THE EAST.\n (1) The Persian Nestorians.\n (2) Monophysite Churches.\n (3) The Maronites.\n (4) The Legend of Prester John.\n\n \u00a7 73. THE SLAVONIC CHURCHES ADHERING TO THE ORTHODOX GREEK\n CONFESSION.\n (1) Slavs in the Greek Provinces.\n (2) The Chazari.\n (3) The Bulgarians.\n (4) The Russian Church.\n (5) Russian Sects.\n (6) Romish Efforts at Union.\n\n\n\n\n SECOND DIVISION.\n\n THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN AND ROMAN CHURCH\n DURING THE MIDDLE AGES.\n\n \u00a7 74. CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THIS PERIOD OF THE DEVELOPMENT.\n (1) The Character of Medi\u00e6val History.\n (2) Periods in the Church History of the German-Roman\n Middle Ages.\n\n\n FIRST SECTION.\n\n HISTORY OF THE GERMAN-ROMAN CHURCH FROM THE 4TH TO\n THE 9TH CENTURY (DOWN TO A.D. 911).\n\n\n I. Founding, Spread, and Limitation of the German Church.\n\n \u00a7 75. CHRISTIANITY AND THE GERMANS.\n (1) The Predisposition of the Germans for Christianity.\n (2) Unopposed Adoption of Christianity.\n (3) Mode of Conversion in the Church of these Times.\n\n \u00a7 76. THE VICTORY OF CATHOLICISM OVER ARIANISM.\n (1) The Goths in the lands of the Danube.\n (2) The Visigoths in Gaul and Spain.\n (3) The Vandals in Africa.\n (4) The Suevi.\n (5) The Burgundians.\n (6) The Rugians.\n (7) The Ostrogoths.\n (8) The Longobards in Italy.\n (9) The Franks in Gaul.\n\n \u00a7 77. VICTORY OF THE ROMISH OVER THE OLD BRITISH CHURCH.\n (1) The Conversion of the Irish.\n (2) The Mission to Scotland.\n (3) The Peculiarities of the Celtic Church.\n (4) The Romish Mission to the Anglo-Saxons.\n (5) Celtic Missions among the Anglo-Saxons.\n (6) The Celtic Element Driven out of the Anglo-Saxon\n Church.\n (7) Spread and Overthrow of the British Church on the\n Continent.\n (8) Overthrow of the Old British System in the\n Iro-Scottish Church.\n\n \u00a7 78. THE CONVERSION AND ROMANIZING OF GERMANY.\n (1) South-Western Germany.\n (2) South-Eastern Germany.\n (3) North-Western Germany.\n (4) The Missionary Work of Boniface.\n (5) The Organization Effected by Boniface.\n (6) Heresies Confronted by Boniface.\n (7) The End of Boniface.\n (8) An Estimate of Boniface.\n (9) The Conversion of the Saxons.\n\n \u00a7 79. THE SLAVS IN GERMAN COUNTRIES.\n (1) The Carantanians and Avars.\n (2) The Moravian Church.\n (3) The Beginnings of Christianity in Bohemia.\n\n \u00a7 80. THE SCANDINAVIAN NATIONS.\n (1) Ansgar.\n (2) Ansgar\u2019s Successor--Rimbert.\n\n \u00a7 81. CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM.\n (1) Islam in Spain.\n (2) Islam in Sicily.\n\n\n II. THE HIERARCHY, THE CLERGY AND THE MONKS.\n\n \u00a7 82. THE PAPACY AND THE CAROLINGIANS.\n (1) The Period of the Founding of the States of the Church.\n (2) Stephen III., A.D. 768-772.\n Hadrian I., A.D. 772-795.\n (3) Charlemagne and Leo III., A.D. 795-816.\n (4) Louis the Pious and the Popes of his Time.\n (5) The Sons of Louis the Pious and the Popes of their Days.\n (6) The Legend of the Female Pope Joanna.\n (7) Nicholas I. and Hadrian II.\n (8) John VIII. and his Successors.\n (9) The Papacy and the Nationalities.\n\n \u00a7 83. THE RANK OF METROPOLITAN.\n (1) The Position of Metropolitans in General.\n (2) Hincmar of Rheims.\n (3) Metropolitans in other lands.\n\n \u00a7 84. THE CLERGY IN GENERAL.\n (1) The Superior Clergy.\n (2) The Inferior Clergy.\n (3) Compulsory Celibacy.\n (4) Canonical life.\n\n \u00a7 85. MONASTICISM.\n (1) Benedict of Nursia.\n (2) Benedict of Aniane.\n (3) Nunneries.\n (4) The Greater Monasteries.\n (5) Monastic Practices among the Clergy.\n (6) The Stylites.\n\n \u00a7 86: THE PROPERTY OF CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES.\n (1) The Revenues of Churches and Monasteries.\n (2) The Benefice System.\n\n \u00a7 87. ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION.\n (1) Older Collections of Ecclesiastical Law.\n (2) The Collection of Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore.\n (3) Details of the History of the Forgery.\n (4) The Edict and Donation of Constantine.\n\n\n III. THE CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE.\n\n \u00a7 88. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ART.\n (1) Liturgy and Preaching.\n (2) Church Music.\n (3) The Sacrifice of the Mass.\n (4) The Worship of Saints.\n (5) Times and Places for Public Worship.\n (6) Ecclesiastical Architecture and Painting.\n\n \u00a7 89. NATIONAL CUSTOMS, SOCIAL LIFE AND CHURCH DISCIPLINE.\n (1) Superstition.\n (2) Popular Education.\n (3) Christian Popular Poetry.\n (4) Social Condition.\n (5) Practice of Pubic Law.\n (6) Church Discipline and Penitential Exercises.\n\n\n IV. THEOLOGY AND ITS BATTLES.\n\n \u00a7 90. SCHOLARSHIP AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.\n (1) Rulers of the Carolingian Line.\n Charlemagne, A.D. 768-814.\n Louis the Pious, A.D. 814-840.\n Charles the Bald, A.D. 840-877.\n (2) The most distinguished Theologians of the\n Pre-Carolingian Age.\n 1. Merovingian France.\n 2. South of the Pyrenees.\n 3. England.\n (3) The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of\n Charlemagne.\n 1. Alcuin.\n 2. Paulus Diaconus.\n 3. Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans.\n 4. Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia and\n Bishop Leidrad of Lyons.\n 5. Hatto, Abbot of Reichenau.\n (4) The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of\n Louis the Pious.\n 1. Agobard of Lyons.\n 2. Claudius, Bishop of Turin.\n 3. Jonas of Orleans.\n 4. Amalarius of Metz.\n 5. Christian Druthmar.\n 6. Rabanus Magnentius Maurus.\n 7. Walafrid Strabo.\n (5) The Most Distinguished Theologians of the Age of\n Charles the Bald.\n 1. Hincmar of Rheims.\n 2. Paschasius Radbertus.\n 3. Ratramnus.\n 4. Florus Magister.\n 5. Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt.\n 6. Servatus Lupus.\n 7. Remigius of Auxerre.\n 8. Regius of Pr\u00fcm.\n (6) 9. Anastasius Bibliothecarius.\n 10. Eulogius of Cordova.\n (7) 11. Joannes Scotus Erigena.\n (8) The Monastic and Cathedral Schools.\n (9) Various Branches of Theological Science.\n 1. Exegesis.\n 2. Systematic Theology.\n 3. Practical Theology.\n 4. Historical Theology.\n (10) Anglo-Saxon Culture under Alfred the Great,\n A.D. 871-901.\n\n \u00a7 91. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES.\n (1) The Adoptionist Controversy, A.D. 782-799.\n (2) Controversy about the Procession of the Holy Spirit.\n (3) The Eucharistic Controversy, A.D. 844.\n (4) Controversy about the Conception of the Virgin.\n (5) The Predestinarian Controversy A.D. 847-868.\n (6) The Trinitarian Controversy, A.D. 857.\n\n \u00a7 92. ENDEAVOURS AFTER REFORMATION.\n (1) The Carolingian Opposition to Image Worship,\n A.D. 790-825.\n (2) Agobard of Lyons and Claudius of Turin.\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION.\n\n\n \u00a7 1. IDEA AND TASK OF CHURCH HISTORY.\n\n The Christian Church is to be defined as the one, many-branched\ncommunion, consisting of all those who confess that Jesus of Nazareth\nis the Christ who in the fulness of time appeared as the Saviour of\nthe world. It is the Church\u2019s special task to render the saving work of\nChrist increasingly fruitful for all nations and individuals, under all\nthe varying conditions of life and stages of culture. It is the task\nof Church History to describe the course of development through which\nthe Church as a whole, as well as its special departments and various\ninstitutions, has passed, from the time of its foundation down to our\nown day; to show what have been the Church\u2019s advances and retrogressions,\nhow it has been furthered and hindered; and to tell the story of its\ndeterioration and renewal.\n\n\n \u00a7 2. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO CONTENTS.\n\n The treatment of Church History, on account of its manifold\nramifications, demands a distribution of its material, on the one hand,\naccording to definite periods, during which the end hitherto aimed at in\nthe whole course of development has been practically attained, so that\neither entirely new phenomena gain prominence, or else the old go forth\nin an altogether different direction; on the other hand, according to\nthe various phases of endeavour and development, which in respect of\ntime are evolved alongside of one another. When this last-mentioned\nmethod of division is adopted, we may still choose between two different\nmodes of treatment. First, we may deal with national churches, in so\nfar as these are independent and have pursued some special direction;\nor with particular churches, which have originated from the splitting\nup of the church universal over some important difference in doctrine,\nworship, and constitution. Secondly, we may group our material according\nto the various departments of historical activity, which are essential\nto the intellectual and spiritual life of all national churches and\ndenominations, and are thus common to all, although in different\nchurches in characteristic ways and varying degrees. It follows however\nfrom the very idea of history, especially from that of the universal\nhistory of the church, that the distribution according to periods must\nbe the leading feature of the entire exposition. At the same time,\nwhatever may now and again, in accordance with the other principles of\narrangement, be brought into prominence will be influenced materially\nby the course of the history and formally by the facility afforded for\nreview by the mode of treatment pursued.\n\n \u00a7 2.1. =The Various Branches Included in a Complete Course of\n Church History.=--The Christian Church has undertaken the task\n of absorbing all peoples and tongues. Hence it is possessed of\n an eager desire to enlarge its borders by the conversion of all\n non-Christian races. The description of what helps or hinders\n this endeavour, the history of the spread and limitation of\n Christianity, is therefore an essential constituent of church\n history. Since, further, the church, in order to secure its\n continued existence and well-being, must strive after a legally\n determined position outwardly, as well as a firm, harmonious\n articulation, combination and order inwardly, it evidently also\n belongs to our science to give the history of the ecclesiastical\n constitution, both of the place which the church has in the state,\n and the relation it bears to the state; and also of its own\n internal arrangements by superordination, subordination, and\n co-ordination, and by church discipline and legislation. Not\n less essential, nay, even more important for the successful\n development of the church, is the construction and establishment\n of saving truth. In Holy Scripture the church indeed has\n possession of the fountain and standard, as well as the\n all-sufficient power and fulness, of all saving knowledge.\n But the words of Scripture are spirit and life, living seeds of\n knowledge, which, under the care of the same Spirit who sows them,\n may and shall be developed so as to yield a harvest which becomes\n ever more and more abundant; and therefore the fulness of the\n truth which dwells in them comes to be known more simply, clearly,\n fully, and becomes always more fruitful for all stages and\n forms of culture, for faith, for science, and for life. Hence\n church history is required to describe the construction of the\n doctrine and science of the church, to follow its course and the\n deviations from it into heresy, whenever these appear. The church\n is, further, in need of a form of public worship as a necessary\n expression of the feelings and emotions of believers toward\n their Lord and God, as a means of edification and instruction.\n The history of the worship of the church is therefore also an\n essential constituent of church history. It is also the duty of\n the church to introduce into the practical life and customs of\n the people that new spiritual energy of which she is possessor.\n And thus the history of the Christian life among the people comes\n to be included in church history as a further constituent of the\n science. Further, there is also included here, in consequence of\n the nature and aim of Christianity as a leaven (Matt. xiii. 33),\n an account of the effects produced upon it by the development of\n art (of which various branches, architecture, sculpture, painting,\n music, have a direct connexion with Christian worship), and\n likewise upon national literature, philosophy, and secular\n science generally; and also, conversely, an estimate of the\n influence of these forms of secular culture upon the condition\n of the church and religion must not be omitted. The order of\n succession in the historical treatment of these phases under\n which the life of the church is manifested, is not to be rigidly\n determined in the same way for all ages after an abstract logical\n scheme. For each period that order of succession should be\n adopted which will most suitably give prominence to those matters\n which have come to the front, and so call for early and detailed\n treatment in the history of that age.\n\n \u00a7 2.2. =The Separate Branches of Church History.=--The\n constituent parts of church history that have been already\n enumerated are of such importance that they might also be treated\n as independent sciences, and indeed for the most part they have\n often been so treated. In this way, not only is a more exact\n treatment of details rendered possible, but also, what is more\n important, the particular science so limited can be construed in\n a natural manner according to principles furnished by itself. The\n history of the spread and limitation of Christianity then assumes\n a separate form as the History of Missions. The separate history\n of the ecclesiastical constitution, worship, and customs is\n known by the name of Christian Arch\u00e6ology, which is indeed,\n in respect of title and contents, an undefined conglomeration\n of heterogeneous elements restricted in a purely arbitrary way\n to the early ages. The treatment of this department therefore\n requires that we should undertake the scientific task of\n distinguishing these heterogeneous elements, and arranging them\n apart for separate consideration; thus following the course of\n their development down to the present day, as the history of the\n constitution, of the worship, and of the culture of the church.\n The history of the development of doctrine falls into four\n divisions:\n\n a. The History of Doctrines in the form of a regular historical\n sketch of the doctrinal development of the church.\n\n b. Symbolics, which gives a systematic representation of the\n relatively final and concluded doctrine of the church as\n determined in the public ecclesiastical confessions or\n symbols for the church universal and for particular sects:\n these again being compared together in Comparative Symbolics.\n\n c. Patristics, which deals with the subjective development of\n doctrine as carried out by the most distinguished teachers\n of the church, who are usually designated church Fathers,\n and confined to the first six or eight centuries.\n\n d. And, finally, the History of Theology in general, or the\n History of the particular Theological Sciences, which treats\n of the scientific conception and treatment of theology\n and its separate branches according to its historical\n development; while the History of Theological Literature,\n which when restricted to the age of the Fathers is called\n Patrology, has to describe and estimate the whole literary\n activity of the church according to the persons, motives,\n and tendencies that are present in it.\n\n As the conclusion and result of church history at particular\n periods, we have the science of Ecclesiastical Statistics, which\n describes the condition of the church in respect of all its\n interests as it stands at some particular moment, \u201clike a slice\n cut cross-wise out of its history.\u201d The most important works in\n these departments are the following:\n\n a. =History of Missions.=--\n Brown, \u201cHist. of Propag. of Christ. among Heathen since\n Reformation.\u201d 3rd Ed., 3 vols., Edin., 1854.\n Warneck, \u201cOutlines of Hist. of Prot. Miss.\u201d Edin., 1884.\n Smith, \u201cShort Hist. of Christ. Miss.\u201d Edin., 1884.\n\n b. =History of the Papacy.=--\n Ranke, \u201cHistory of Papacy in 16th and 17th Cent.\u201d 2 vols.,\n Lond., 1855.\n Platina (Lib. of Vatican), \u201cLives of Popes.\u201d (1481). Trans.\n by Rycaut, Lond., 1685.\n Bower, \u201cHist. of Popes.\u201d 7 vols., Lond., 1750.\n Bryce, \u201cHoly Rom. Empire.\u201d Lond., 1866.\n Creighton, \u201cHist. of Papacy during the Reformation.\u201d\n Vols. I.-IV., from A.D. 1378-1518, Lond., 1882-1886.\n Janus, \u201cPope and the Council.\u201d Lond., 1869.\n Pennington, \u201cEpochs of the Papacy.\u201d Lond., 1882.\n\n c. =History of Monasticism.=--\n Hospinianus [Hospinian], \u201cDe Monachis.\u201d Etc., Tigur., 1609.\n Maitland, \u201cThe Dark Ages.\u201d Lond., 1844.\n\n d. =History of Councils.=--\n Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d Vols. I.-III., to A.D. 451,\n Edin., 1871-1883. (Original German work brought down\n to the Council of Trent exclusive.)\n\n e. =Church law.=--\n Haddan and Stubbs, \u201cCouncils and Eccl. Documents illust.\n Eccl. Hist. of Gr. Brit. and Ireland.\u201d 3 vols.,\n Lond., 1869 ff.\n Phillimore, \u201cEccl. Law.\u201d Lond., 1873.\n\n f. =Arch\u00e6ology.=--\n By Cath. Didron, \u201cChrist. Iconography; or, Hist. of Christ.\n Art in M. A.\u201d Lond., 1886.\n By Prot. Bingham, \u201cAntiq. of Christ. Church.\u201d 9 vols.,\n Lond., 1845.\n \u201cDictionary of Christ. Antiquities.\u201d Ed. by Smith &\n Cheetham, 2 vols., Lond., 1875 ff.\n\n g. =History of Doctrines.=--\n Neander, \u201cHist. of Christ. Doct.\u201d 2 vols., Lond.\n Hagenbach, \u201cHist. of Christ. Doctrines.\u201d 3 vols.,\n Edin., 1880 f.\n Shedd, \u201cHist. of Christ. Doc.\u201d 2 vols., Edin., 1869.\n\n h. =Symbolics and Polemics.=--\n Winer, \u201cConfessions of Christendom.\u201d Edin., 1873.\n Schaff, \u201cCreeds of Christendom.\u201d 3 vols., Edin., 1877 ff.\n M\u00f6hler, \u201cSymbolism: an Expos. of the Doct. Differences\n between Catholics and Protestants.\u201d 2 vols., Lond.,\n 1843.\n\n i. =Patrology and History of Theolog. Literature.=--\n Dupin, \u201cNew History of Ecclesiastical Writers.\u201d\n Lond., 1696.\n Cave, \u201cScript. Eccl. Hist. Lit.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1668.\n Fabricii, \u201cBiblioth. Gr\u00e6ca.\u201d 14 vols., Hamb., 1705;\n \u201cBiblioth. Medi\u00e6 et infin\u00e6 Latin.\u201d 6 vols.,\n Hamb., 1734.\n Teuffel, \u201cHist. of Rom. Lit.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1873.\n\n k. =History of the Theological Sciences.=--\n Budd\u00e6us, \u201cIsagoge Hist. Theol. ad Theol. Univ.\u201d Lps., 1727.\n R\u00e4biger, \u201cEncyclop\u00e6dia of Theology.\u201d 2 vols., Edin., 1884.\n Dorner, \u201cHist. of Prot. Theol.\u201d 2 vols., Edin., 1871.\n\n =History of Exegesis.=--\n Davidson, \u201cSacred Hermeneutics; including Hist. of Biblical\n Interpretation from earliest Fathers to Reformation.\u201d\n Edin., 1843.\n Farrar, \u201cHist. of Interpretation.\u201d Lond., 1886.\n\n =History of Morals.=--\n Wuttke\u2019s \u201cChristian Ethics.\u201d Vol. I., \u201cHist. of Ethics.\u201d\n Edin., 1873.\n\n l. =Biographies.=--\n \u201cActa Sanctorum.\u201d 63 vols. fol., Ant., 1643 ff.\n Mabillon, \u201cActa Ss. ord. S. Bened.\u201d 9 vols. fol.,\n Par., 1666 ff.\n Flaccius [Flacius], \u201cCatalog. Testium Veritatis.\u201d 1555.\n Piper, \u201cLives of Leaders of Church Universal.\u201d 2 vols.,\n Edin.\n Smith and Wace, \u201cDict. of Chr. Biog.\u201d etc., 4 vols.,\n Lond., 1877 ff.\n\n\n \u00a7 3. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH HISTORY ACCORDING TO PERIODS.\n\n In the history of the world\u2019s culture three historical stages\nof universal development succeed each other: the Oriental, the\nFranco-German, and the Teutono-Romanic. The kingdom of God had to enter\neach of these and have in each a distinctive character, so that as\ncomprehensive a development as possible might be secured. The history\nof the preparation for Christianity in the history of the Israelitish\ntheocracy moves along the lines of Oriental culture. The history of\nthe beginnings of Christianity embraces the history of the founding of\nthe church by Christ and His Apostles. These two together constitute\nBiblical history, which, as an independent branch of study receiving\nseparate treatment, need be here treated merely in a brief, introductory\nmanner. This holds true also of the history of pagan culture alongside\nof and subsequent to the founding of the church. Church history,\nstrictly so-called, the development of the already founded church,\nbegins therefore, according to our conception, with the Post-Apostolic\nAge, and from that point pursues its course in three principal divisions.\nThe ancient church completes its task by thoroughly assimilating\nthe elements contributed by the Gr\u00e6co-Roman forms of civilization.\nIn the Teutono-Romanic Church of the middle ages the appropriation\nand amalgamation of ancient classical modes of thought with modern\ntendencies awakened by its immediate surroundings were carried out and\ncompleted. On the other hand, the development of church history since\nthe Reformation has its impulse given it by that Teutono-Christian\nculture which had maturity and an independent form secured to it by the\nReformation. This distribution in accordance with the various forms of\ncivilization seems to us so essential, that we propose to borrow from\nit our principle for the arrangement of our church history.\n\n The chronological distribution of the material may be represented in\nthe following outline:\n\n I. =History of the Preparation for Christianity=: Preparation\n for Redemption during the Hebraic-Oriental stage of\n civilization, and the construction alongside of it in the\n universalism of classical culture of forms that prepared the\n way for the coming salvation.\n\n II. =History of the Beginnings of Christianity=: a sketch of the\n redemption by Christ and the founding of the Church through\n the preaching of it by the Apostles.\n\n III. =History of the Development of Christianity=, on the basis\n of the sketch of the redemption given in the history of the\n Beginnings:\n\n A. =In the Gr\u00e6co-Roman and Gr\u00e6co-Byzantine Period, under\n Ancient Classical Forms of Civilization.=\n _First Section_, A.D. 70 to A.D. 323,--down to\n the final victory of Christianity over the Gr\u00e6co-Roman\n paganism; the Post-Apostolic and Old Catholic Ages.\n _Second Section_, from A.D. 323 to A.D. 692,--down\n to the final close of \u0153cumenical development of doctrine\n in A.D. 680, and the appearance of what proved a lasting\n estrangement between the Eastern and the Western Churches\n in A.D. 692, which was soon followed by the alliance of\n the Papacy with the Frankish instead of the Byzantine\n empire; the \u0152cumenico-Catholic Church, or the Church of\n the Roman-Byzantine Empire.\n _Third Section_, from A.D. 692 to A.D. 1453,--down\n to the overthrow of Constantinople. Languishing and decay\n of the old church life in the Byzantine Empire; complete\n breach and futile attempts at union between East and West.\n The Church of the Byzantine Empire.\n\n B. =In the Medi\u00e6val Period, under Teutono-Romanic Forms of\n Civilization.=\n _First Section_, 4-9th cent.--from the first\n beginnings of Teutonic church life down to the end of the\n Carlovingian Age, A.D. 911. The Teutonic Age.\n _Second Section_, 10-13th cent.--down to\n Boniface VIII., A.D. 1294; rise of medi\u00e6val\n institutions--the Papacy, Monasticism, Scholasticism;\n Germany in the foreground of the ecclesiastico-political\n movement.\n _Third Section_, the 14-15th cent.--down to the\n Reformation in A.D. 1517; deterioration and collapse of\n medi\u00e6val institutions; France in the foreground of the\n ecclesiastico-political movement.\n\n C. =In the Modern Period, under the European Forms of\n Civilization.=\n _First Section_, the 16th cent. Age of\n Evangelical-Protestant Reformation and Roman Catholic\n Counter-Reformation.\n _Second Section_, the 17th cent. Age of Orthodoxy\n on the Protestant side and continued endeavours after\n restoration on the side of Catholicism.\n _Third Section_, the 18th cent. Age of advancing\n Illuminism in both churches,--Deism, Naturalism,\n Rationalism.\n _Fourth Section_, the 19th cent. Age of re-awakened\n Christian and Ecclesiastical life. Unionism,\n Confessionalism, and Liberalism in conflict with\n one another on the Protestant side; the revival of\n Ultramontanism in conflict with the civil power on the\n Catholic side. In opposition to both churches, widespread\n pantheistic, materialistic, and communistic tendencies.\n\n\n \u00a7 4. SOURCES AND AUXILIARIES OF CHURCH HISTORY.[1]\n\n =The sources of Church history= are partly original, in the shape of\ninscriptions and early documents; partly derivative, in the shape of\ntraditions and researches in regard to primitive documents that have\nmeanwhile been lost. Of greater importance to church history than the\nso-called dumb sources, _e.g._ church buildings, furniture, pictures,\nare the inscriptions coming down from the earliest times; but of the\nvery highest importance are the extant official documents, _e.g._\nacts and decisions of Church Councils, decrees and edicts of the\nPopes,--decretals, bulls, briefs,--the pastoral letters of bishops,\ncivil enactments and decrees regarding ecclesiastical matters, the rules\nof Spiritual Orders, monastic rules, liturgies, confessional writings,\nthe epistles of influential ecclesiastical and civil officers, reports\nby eye witnesses, sermons and doctrinal treatises by Church teachers,\netc. In regard to matters not determined by any extant original\ndocuments, earlier or later fixed traditions and historical researches\nmust take the place of those lost documents.--=Sciences Auxiliary\nto Church History= are such as are indispensable for the critical\nestimating and sifting, as well as for the comprehensive understanding\nof the sources of church history. To this class the following branches\nbelong: _Diplomatics_, which teaches how to estimate the genuineness,\ncompleteness, and credibility of the documents in question; _Philology_,\nwhich enables us to understand the languages of the sources; _Geography\nand Chronology_, which make us acquainted with the scenes and periods\nwhere and when the incidents related in the original documents were\nenacted. Among auxiliary sciences in the wider sense, the history of the\n_State_, of _Law_, of _Culture_, of _Literature_, of _Philosophy_, and\nof _Universal Religion_, may also be included as indispensable owing to\ntheir intimate connection with ecclesiastical development.\n\n \u00a7 4.1. =Literature of the Sources.=--\n\n a. =Inscriptions=:\n de Rossi, \u201cInscriptt. chr. urbis Rom.\u201d Vols. I. II.,\n Rome, 1857.\n\n b. =Collections of Councils=:\n Harduin [Hardouin], \u201cConc. coll.\u201d (to A.D. 1715),\n 12 vols., Par., 1715.\n Mansi, \u201cConc. nova et ampl. coll.\u201d 31 vols., Flor., 1759.\n\n c. =Papal Acts=:\n Jaffe, \u201cRegesta pont. Rom.\u201d (to A.D. 1198), 2 ed.,\n Brl., 1881.\n Potthast, \u201cRegesta pont. Rom.\u201d (A.D. 1198-1304), 2 Vols.,\n Brl., 1873.\n The Papal Decretals in \u201cCorp. jur. Canonici.\u201d ed.,\n Friedberg, Lips., 1879.\n \u201cBullarum, diplom. et privil. SS. rom. pont.\u201d Taurenensis\n editio, 24 vols., 1857 ff.\n Nussi, \u201cConventiones de reb. eccl. inter s. sedem et civ.\n pot. init\u00e6.\u201d Mogunt., 1870.\n\n d. =Monastic Rules=:\n Holstenii, \u201cCod. regul. mon. et. can.\u201d 6 vols., 1759.\n\n e. =Liturgies=:\n Daniel, \u201cCod. liturg. eccl. univ.\u201d 4 vols., Leipz.,\n 1847 ff.\n Hammond, \u201cAncient Liturgies.\u201d Oxf., 1878.\n\n f. =Symbolics=:\n Kimmel, \u201cLl. Symb. eccl. Orient.\u201d Jena., 1843.\n Danz, \u201cLl. Symb. eccl. Rom. Cath.\u201d Weimar, 1835.\n Hase, \u201cLl. Symb. eccl. evang.\u201d Ed. iii., Leipz., 1840.\n Niemeyer, \u201cColl. Conf. eccl. Ref.\u201d Leipz., 1840.\n Schaff, \u201cCreeds of Christendom.\u201d 3 vols., Lond., 1882.\n\n g. =Martyrologies=:\n Ruinart, \u201cActa prim. Mart.\u201d 3 vols., 1802.\n Assemanni [Assemani], \u201cActa SS. Mart. orient. et occid.\u201d\n 2 vols., Rome, 1748.\n\n h. =Greek and Latin Church Fathers and Teachers=:\n Migne, \u201cPatrologi\u00e6 currus completus.\u201d Ser. I., Eccl. Gr\u00e6c.,\n 162 vols., Par., 1857 ff.; Ser. II., Eccl. Lat.,\n 221 vols., Par., 1844 ff.\n Horoy, \u201cMedia \u00e6vi biblioth. patrist.\u201d (from A.D. 1216 to\n 1564), Paris, 1879.\n \u201cCorpus Scriptorum eccl. lat.\u201d Vindob., 1866 ff.\n Grabe, \u201cSpicilegium SS. Pp. et H\u00e6rett.\u201d S\u00e6c. I.-III.,\n 3 vols., Oxford, 1698.\n Routh, \u201cReliqui\u00e6 sac.\u201d 4 vols., Oxford, 1814 ff.\n \u201cAnte-Nicene Christian Library; a collection of all the\n works of the Fathers of the Christian Church prior to\n the Council of Nic\u00e6a.\u201d 24 vols., Edin., 1867 ff.\n\n i. =Ancient Writers of the East=:\n Assemanus [Assemani], \u201cBiblioth. orient.\u201d 4 vols.,\n Rome, 1719.\n\n k. =Byzantine Writers=:\n Niebuhr, \u201cCorp. scr. hist. Byz.\u201d 48 vols., Bonn, 1828 ff.\n Sathas, \u201cBiblioth. Gr\u00e6c. Med. \u00e6vi.\u201d Vols. I.-VI., Athens,\n 1872 ff.\n\n \u00a7 4.2. =Literature of the Auxiliary Sciences.=--\n\n a. =Diplomatics=:\n Mabillon, \u201cDe re diplomatic.\u201d Ed. ii., Par., 1709.\n\n b. =Philology=:\n Du Fresne (du Cange), \u201cGlossarium ad scriptt. med. et\n infim. Latin.\u201d 6 vols., Par., 1733; New ed., Henschel\n and Favre, in course of publication.\n Du Fresne, \u201cGlossarium, ad scriptt. med. et infim. Gr\u00e6c.\u201d\n 2 vols., Leyden, 1688.\n Suiceri, \u201cThesaurus ecclesiast. e patribus gr\u00e6cis.\u201d\n Ed. ii., 2 vols., Amst., 1728.\n\n c. =Geography and Statistics=:\n Mich. le Quien, \u201cOriens christianus in quatuor\n patriarchatus digestus.\u201d 3 vols., Par., 1704.\n\n d. =Chronology=:\n Nicolas, \u201cThe Chronology of History.\u201d 2 ed., Lond., 1838.\n \u201cL\u2019art de verifier les dates, by d\u2019Antine.\u201d Etc., ed. by\n Courcelles, 19 vols., Par., 1821-1824.\n\n\n \u00a7 5. HISTORY OF GENERAL CHURCH HISTORY.\n\n The earliest writer of church history properly so called is Eusebius,\nBishop of C\u00e6sarea, \u2020 340. During the fifth century certain members\nof the Greek Church continued his work. The Western Church did not\nso soon engage upon undertakings of that sort, and was contented with\ntranslations and reproductions of the materials that had come down from\nthe Greeks instead of entering upon original investigations. During the\nmiddle ages, in consequence of the close connection subsisting between\nChurch and State, the Greek _Scriptores histori\u00e6 Byzantin\u00e6_, as well as\nthe Latin national histories, biographies, annals, and chronicles, are\nof the very utmost importance as sources of information regarding the\nchurch history of their times. It was the Reformation, however, that\nfirst awakened and inspired the spirit of true critical research and\nscientific treatment of church history, for the appeal of the Reformers\nto the pure practices and institutions of the early days of the church\ndemanded an authoritative historical exposition of the founding of the\nchurch, and this obliged the Catholic church to engage upon the studies\nnecessary for this end. The Lutheran as well as the Catholic Church,\nhowever, down to the middle of the 17th century, were satisfied with\nthe voluminous productions of the two great pioneers in Church history,\nFlacius and Baronius. Afterwards, however, emulation in the study of\nchurch history was excited, which was undoubtedly, during the 17th\ncentury, most successfully prosecuted in the Catholic Church. In\nconsequence of the greater freedom which prevailed in the Gallican\nChurch, these studies flourished conspicuously in France, and were\npursued with exceptional success by the Oratorians and the Order\nof St. Maur. The Reformed theologians, especially in France and the\nNetherlands, did not remain far behind them in the contest. Throughout\nthe 18th century, again, the performances of the Lutheran Church came to\nthe front, while a laudable rivalry leads the Reformed to emulate their\nexcellencies. In the case of the Catholics, on the other hand, that\nzeal and capacity which, during the 17th century, had won new laurels in\nthe field of honour, were now sadly crippled. But as rationalism spread\nin the domain of doctrine, pragmatism spread in the domain of church\nhistory, which set for itself as the highest ideal of historical writing\nthe art of deducing everything in history, even what is highest and\nmost profound in it, from the co-operation of fortune and passion,\narbitrariness and calculation. It was only in the 19th century, when a\nreturn was made to the careful investigation of original authorities,\nand it came to be regarded as the task of the historian, to give a\nconception and exposition of the science as objective as possible, that\nthis erroneous tendency was arrested.\n\n \u00a7 5.1. =Down to the Reformation.=--The church history of\n =Eusebius=, which reaches down to A.D. 324, was to some extent\n continued by his _Vita Constantini_, down to A.D. 337 (\u00a7 47, 2).\n The church history of =Philostorgius=, which reaches from\n A.D. 318-423, coming down to us only in fragments quoted by\n Photius, was an Arian party production of some importance.\n During the 5th century, however, the church history of Eusebius\n was continued down to A.D. 439 by the Catholic =Socrates=, an\n advocate at Constantinople, written in a simple and impartial\n style, yet not altogether uncritical, and with a certain measure\n of liberality; and down to A.D. 423, by =Sozomen=, also an\n advocate at Constantinople, who in large measure plagiarizes from\n Socrates, and is, in what is his own, uncritical, credulous, and\n fond of retailing anecdotes; and down to A.D. 428 by =Theodoret=,\n Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, who produces much useful material in\n the shape of original authorities, confining himself, however,\n like both of his predecessors, almost exclusively to the affairs\n of the Eastern Church. In the 6th century, =Theodorus=, reader at\n Constantinople, made a collection of extracts from these works,\n continuing the history down to his own time in A.D. 527. Of this\n we have only fragments preserved by Nicephorus Callisti. The\n continuation by =Evagrius= of Antioch, reaching from A.D. 431-594,\n is characterized by carefulness, learning, and impartiality,\n along with zealous orthodoxy, and an uncritical belief in the\n marvellous. Collected editions of all these works have been\n published by Valesius (Par., 1659), and Reading (Cantab., 1720),\n in each case in 3 vols. folio.--In the Latin Church =Rufinus= of\n Aquileia translated the work of Eusebius and enlarged it before\n the continuations of the three Greek historians had appeared,\n carrying it down to his own time in A.D. 395 in an utterly\n uncritical fashion. =Sulpicius Severus=, a presbyter of Gaul,\n wrote about the same time his _Historia Sacra_, in two books,\n from the creation of the world down to A.D. 400. In the 6th\n century, =Cassiodorus= fused together into one treatise in\n 12 books, by means of extracts, the works of the three Greek\n continuators of Eusebius, under the title _Hist. ecclesiastica\n tripartita_, which, combined with the history of Rufinus,\n remained down to the Reformation in common use as a text-book.\n A church history written in the 6th century in Syriac, by the\n monophysite bishop, =John of Ephesus=, morbidly fond of the\n miraculous, first became known to us in an abridged form of\n the third part embracing the history of his own time. (Ed.\n Cureton, Oxf., 1853. Transl. into Engl. by Payne Smith, Oxford,\n 1859.)--Belonging to the Latin church of the middle ages, =Haymo=\n of Halberstadt deserves to be named as a writer of universal\n history, about A.D. 850, leaning mainly upon Rufinus and\n Cassiodorus. The same too may be said about the work entitled,\n _Libri XIII. histori\u00e6 ecclesiastic\u00e6_ written by the Abbot\n =Odericus Vitalis= in Normandy, about A.D. 1150, which forms\n upon the whole the most creditable production of the middle\n ages. In the 24 books of the Church history of the Dominican and\n Papal librarian, =Tolomeo of Lucca=, composed about A.D. 1315,\n church history is conceived of as if it were simply a historical\n commentary on the ecclesiastical laws and canons then in force,\n as an attempt, that is, to incorporate in the history all the\n fictions and falsifications, which Pseudo-Isidore in the 9th\n century (\u00a7 87, 2-4), Gratian in the 12th century, and Raimundus\n [Raimund] de Penneforti [Pennaforte] in the 13th century\n (\u00a7 99, 5), had wrought into the Canon law. Toward the end of\n the 15th century, under the influence of humanism there was an\n awakening here and there to a sense of the need of a critical\n procedure in the domain of church history, which had been\n altogether wanting throughout the middle ages. In the Greek\n Church again, during the 14th century, =Nicephorus Callisti=\n of Constantinople, wrote a treatise on church history, reaching\n down to A.D. 610, devoid of taste and without any indication of\n critical power.\n\n \u00a7 5.2. =The 16th and 17th Centuries.=--About the middle of the\n 16th century the Lutheran Church produced a voluminous work in\n church history, the so-called =Magdeburg Centuries=, composed\n by a committee of Lutheran theologians, at the head of which was\n =Matthias Flacius=, of Illyria in Magdeburg. This work consisted\n of 13 folio vols., each of which embraced a century. (_Eccles.\n Hist., integram eccl. ideam complectens, congesta per aliquot\n studiosos et pios viros in urbe Magdb._ Bas., 1559-1574.) They\n rest throughout on careful studies of original authorities,\n produce many documents that were previously unknown, and, with\n an unsparingly bitter polemic against the Romish doctrinal\n degeneration, address themselves with special diligence to the\n historical development of dogma. In answer to them the Romish\n Oratorian, =C\u00e6sar Baronius=, produced his _Annales ecclesiastici_,\n in 12 vols. folio, reaching down to A.D. 1198 (Rome, 1588-1607).\n This work moves entirely along Roman Catholic lines and is quite\n prejudiced and partial, and seeks in a thoroughly uncritical\n way, by every species of ingenuity, to justify Romish positions;\n yet, as communicating many hitherto unknown, and to others\n inaccessible documents, it must be regarded as an important\n production. It secured for its author the cardinal\u2019s hat,\n and had wellnigh raised him to the chair of St. Peter. In the\n interests of a scholarly and truth-loving research, it was\n keenly criticised by the Franciscan Anthony Pagi (_Critica\n hist-chronol._ 4 vols., Antw., 1705), carried down in the 17th\n century from A.D. 1198-1565, in 9 vols. by Oderic. Raynaldi, in\n the 18th century from A.D. 1566-1571, in 3 vols. by de Laderchi,\n and in the 19th century down to A.D. 1585 in 3 vols. by August\n Theiner. A new edition was published by Mansi (43 vols., 1738\n ff.), with Raynaldi\u2019s continuation and Pagi\u2019s criticism.--During\n the 17th century the French Catholic scholars bore the palm\n as writers of Church history. The course was opened in general\n church history by the Dominican =Natalis Alexander=, a learned\n man, but writing a stiff scholastic style (_Selecta hist. eccl.\n capita et diss. hist. chron. et dogm._ 24 vols., Par., 1676 ff.).\n This first edition, on account of its Gallicanism was forbidden\n at Rome; a later one by Roncaglia of Lucca, with corrective notes,\n was allowed to pass. Sebast. le Nain de =Tillemont=, with the\n conscientiousness of his Jansenist faith, gave an account of\n early church history in a cleverly grouped series of carefully\n selected authorities (_Memoires pour servir \u00e0 l\u2019hist. eccl. des\n six premiers si\u00e8cles, justifi\u00e9s par les citations des auteurs\n originaux._ 16 vols., Par., 1693 ff.). =Bossuet= wrote, for\n the instruction of the Dauphin, what Hase has styled \u201can\n ecclesiastical history of the world with eloquent dialectic\n and with an insight into the ways of providence, as if the wise\n Bishop of Meaux had been in the secrets not only of the king\u2019s\n but also of God\u2019s councils\u201d (_Discours sur l\u2019hist. universelle\n depuis le commencement du monde jusqu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019empire de Charles M._\n Par., 1681). =Claude Fleury=, aiming at edification, proceeds in\n flowing and diffuse periods (_Histoire ecclst._ 20 vols., Par.,\n 1691 ff.).--The history of the French Church (A.D. 1580) ascribed,\n probably erroneously, to Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin,\n marks the beginning of the writing of ecclesiastical history\n in the Reformed Church. During the 17th century it secured an\n eminence in the department of church history, especially on\n account of learned special researches (\u00a7 160, 7), but also to\n some extent in the domain of general church history. =J. H.\n Hottinger= overloaded his _Hist. ecclst. N. T._ (9 vols., Fig.,\n 1651 ff.) by dragging in the history of Judaism, and Paganism,\n and even of Mohammedanism, with much irrelevant matter of that\n sort. Superior to it were the works of =Friedr. Spanheim= (_Summa\n hist. eccl._ Leyd., 1689) =Jas. Basnage= (_Hist. de l\u2019\u00e9gl._\n 2 vols., Rotd., 1699). Most important of all were the keen\n criticism of the Annals of Baronius by =Isaac Casaubon=\n (_Exercitt. Baronian\u00e6._ Lond., 1614), and by =Sam. Basnage=\n (_Exercitt. hist. crit._ Traj., 1692; and _Annales polit. ecclst._\n 3 vols., Rotd., 1706).\n\n \u00a7 5.3. =The 18th Century.=--After the publication of the\n Magdeburg _Opus palmare_ the study of church history fell\n into the background in the Lutheran Church. It was George\n Calixtus (\u2020 A.D. 1658) and the syncretist controversies which\n he occasioned that again awakened an interest in such pursuits.\n =Gottfr. Arnold\u2019s= colossal party-spirited treatise entitled\n \u201cUnparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie\u201d (2 vols. fol., Frkf.,\n 1699), which scarcely recognised Christianity except in heresies\n and fanatical sects, gave a powerful impulse to the spirit of\n investigation and to the generous treatment of opponents. This\n bore fruit in the irenical and conciliatory attempts of =Weismann=\n of T\u00fcbingen (_Introd. in memorabilia ecclst._ 2 vols., T\u00fcb.,\n 1718). The shining star, however, in the firmament of church\n history during the 18th century was =J. Lor. v. Mosheim= in\n Helmstedt [Helmstadt] and G\u00f6ttingen, distinguished alike for\n thorough investigation, with a divinatory power of insight, and\n by a brilliant execution and an artistic facility in the use\n of a noble Latin style (_Institutionum hist. ecclst. Libri IV._\n Helmst., 1755; transl. into English by Murdock, ed. by Reid,\n 11th ed., Lond., 1880). =J. A. Cramer=, in Kiel, translated\n Bossuet\u2019s _Einl. in die Gesch. d. Welt u. d. Relig._, with a\n continuation which gave a specially careful treatment of the\n theology of the middle ages (7 vols., Leipz., 1757 ff.). =J. Sal.\n Semler=, in Halle, shook, with a morbidly sceptical criticism,\n many traditional views in Church history that had previously been\n regarded as unassailable (_Hist. eccl. selecta capita._ 3 vols.,\n Halle, 1767 ff.; _Versuch e. fruchtb. Auszugs d. K. Gesch._\n 3 vols., Halle, 1773 ff.). On the other hand, =Jon. Matt. Schr\u00f6ckh\n of Wittenberg= produced a gigantic work on church history, which\n is characterized by patient research, and gives, in so far as\n the means within his reach allowed, a far-sighted, temperate, and\n correct statement of facts (_Christl. K. G._ 45 vols., Leipz.,\n 1772 ff., the last two vols. by Tzschirner). The W\u00fcrtemburg\n [W\u00fcrttemberg] minister of state, Baron =von Spittler=, sketched\n a _Grundriss der K. Gesch._, in short and smartly expressed\n utterances, which in many cases were no better than caricatures\n (5th ed. by Planck, G\u00f6tt., 1812). In his footsteps =Henke=\n of Helmstedt [Helmstadt], followed, who, while making full\n acknowledgment of the moral blessing which had been brought by\n true Christianity to mankind, nevertheless described the \u201c_Allg.\n Gesch. der Kirche_\u201d as if it were a bedlam gallery of religious\n and moral aberrations and strange developments (6 vols.,\n Brsweig., 1788 ff.; 5th ed. revised and continued by =Vater= in\n 9 vols.).--In the Reformed Church, =Herm. Venema=, of Franeker,\n the Mosheim of this church, distinguished himself by the thorough\n documentary basis which he gave to his exposition, written in\n a conciliatory spirit (_Institutt. hist. eccl. V. et N. T._\n 7 vols., Leyd., 1777 ff.). In the Catholic Church, =Royko= of\n Prague, favoured by the reforming tendencies of the Emperor\n Joseph II., was able with impunity to give expression to his\n anti-hierarchical views in an almost cynically outspoken statement\n (_Einl. in d. chr. Rel. u. K. G._ Prague, 1788).\n\n \u00a7 5.4. =The 19th Century.= In his _Handb. d. chr. K. G._, publ.\n in 1801 (in 2nd ed. contin. by Rettberg, 7 vols., Giessen, 1834),\n =Chr. Schmidt= of Giessen expressly maintained that the supreme\n and indeed the only conditions of a correct treatment of history\n consisted in the direct study of the original documents, and a\n truly objective exhibition of the results derived therefrom. By\n objectivity, however, he understood indifference and coolness\n of the subject in reference to the object, which must inevitably\n render the representation hard, colourless, and lifeless.\n =Gieseler= of G\u00f6ttingen, \u2020 1854, commended this mode of treatment\n by his excellent execution, and in his _Lehrbuch_ (5 vols., Bonn,\n 1824-1857; Engl. transl. \u201cCompendium of Church History.\u201d 5 vols.,\n Edinb., 1846-1856), a master-piece of the first rank, which\n supports, explains and amplifies the author\u2019s own admirably\n compressed exposition by skilfully chosen extracts from the\n documents, together with original and thoughtful criticism under\n the text. A temperate, objective, and documentary treatment of\n church history is also given in the _Handbuch_ of =Engelhardt=\n of Erlangen (5 vols., Erlang., 1832 ff.). Among the so-called\n _Compendia_ the most popular was the _Universalgeschichte d. K._\n by =St\u00e4udlin=, of G\u00f6ttingen (Hann., 1807; 5th ed. by Holzhausen,\n 1833). It was superseded by the _Lehrbuch_ of =Hase=, of Jena\n (Leipz., 1834; 10th ed., 1877; Engl. transl. from 7th Germ. ed.,\n New York, 1855), which is a generally pregnant and artistically\n tasteful exposition with often excellent and striking features,\n subtle perception, and with ample references to documentary\n sources. The _Vorlesungen_ of =Schleiermacher=, \u2020 1834, published\n after his death by Bonell (Brl., 1840), assume acquaintance\n with the usual materials, and present in a fragmentary manner\n the general outlines of the church\u2019s course of development.\n =Niedner\u2019s= _Lehrbuch_ (2nd ed., Brl., 1866), is distinguished by\n a philosophical spirit, independent treatment, impartial judgment,\n and wealth of contents with omission of customary matter, but\n marred by the scholastic stiffness and awkwardness of its style.\n =Gfr\u00f6rer\u2019s= (\u2020 1861) _Kirchengeschichte_ (7 vols. reaching down\n to A.D. 1000, Stuttg., 1840) treats early Christianity as purely\n a product of the culture of the age, and knows of no moving\n principles in the historical development of the Christian church\n but clerical self-seeking, political interests, machinations\n and intrigues. Nevertheless the book, especially in the portion\n treating of the middle ages, affords a fresh and lively account\n of researches among original documents and of new results,\n although even here the author does not altogether restrain his\n undue fondness for over subtle combinations. After his entrance\n into the Catholic Church his labours in the domain of church\n history were limited to a voluminous history of Gregory VII.,\n which may be regarded as a continuation of his church history,\n the earlier work having only reached down to that point. =Baur=\n of T\u00fcbingen began the publication of monographical treatises on\n particular periods, reaching down to the Reformation (3 vols.,\n 2nd ed., T\u00fcb., 1860 ff.), a continuation to the end of the 18th\n cent. (published by his son F. Baur, 1863), and also a further\n volume treating of the 19th cent. (publ. by his son-in-law Zeller,\n 2nd ed., 1877). These works of this unwearied investigator show\n thorough mastery of the immense mass of material, with subtle\n criticism and in many cases the first establishment of new views.\n =B\u00f6hringer\u2019s= massive production (_Die Kirche Christi und ihre\n Zeugen, oder Kirchengeschichte in Biographien_. 24 vols., Zur.,\n 1842; 2nd ed., Zur., 1873), upon the basis of an independent\n study of the several ages down to the Reformation, characterizes\n by means of detailed portraiture the personalities prominent\n during these periods. In the second edition, thoroughly recast\n with the assistance of his two sons, there is evidence of a more\n strictly critical research and a judicial frame of mind, so that\n the predominantly panegyrical character of the first edition is\n considerably modified. =Rothe\u2019s= lectures, edited after his death,\n with additions from his literary remains, by Weingarten (2 vols.,\n Hdlb., 1875) are quite fragmentary because the usual historical\n matter was often supplied from Gieseler, Neander, or Hase. The\n work is of great value in the departments of the Constitution\n and the Life of the Church, but in other respects does not at\n all satisfy the expectations which one might entertain respecting\n productions bearing such an honoured name; thoroughly solid and\n scholarly, however, are the unfortunately only sparse and short\n notes of the learned editor.\n\n \u00a7 5.5. Almost contemporaneously with Gieseler, =Aug. Neander=\n of Berlin, \u2020 1850, began the publication of his _Allg. Gesch. d.\n chr. Kirche_ in xi. divisions down to A.D. 1416 (Ham., 1824-1852.\n Engl. Transl. 9 vols., Edin., 1847-1855), by which ground\n was broken in another direction. Powerfully influenced by the\n religious movement, which since the wars of independence had\n inspired the noblest spirits of Germany, and sympathizing with\n Schleiermacher\u2019s theology of feeling, he vindicated the rights of\n subjective piety in the scientific treatment of church history,\n and sought to make it fruitful for edification as a commentary\n of vast proportions on the parable of the leaven. With special\n delight he traces the developments of the inner life, shows what\n is Christian in even misconceived and ecclesiastically condemned\n manifestations, and feels for the most part repelled from\n objective ecclesiasticism, as from an ossification of the\n Christian life and the crystallization of dogma. In the same way\n he undervalues the significance of the political co-efficients,\n and has little appreciation of esthetic and artistic influences.\n The exposition goes out too often into wearisome details and\n grows somewhat monotonous, but is on every side lighted up by\n first hand acquaintance with the original sources. His scholar,\n =Hagenbach= of Basel, \u2020 1874, put together in a collected form\n his lectures delivered before a cultured public upon several\n periods of church history, so as to furnish a treatise dealing\n with the whole field (7 vols., Leipz., 1868). These lectures are\n distinguished by an exposition luminous, interesting, sometimes\n rather broad, but always inspired by a warm Christian spirit and\n by circumspect judgment, inclining towards a mild confessional\n latitudinarianism. What, even on the confessional and\n ecclesiastical side, had been to some extent passed over by\n Neander, in consequence of his tendency to that inwardness that\n characterizes subjective and pectoral piety, has been enlarged\n upon by =Guericke= of Halle, \u2020 1878, another of Neander\u2019s\n scholars, in his _Handbuch_ (2 vols., Leipz., 1833; 9th ed.,\n 3 vols., 1866; Eng. transl. \u201cManual of Ch. Hist.\u201d Edinb., 1857),\n by the contribution of his own enthusiastic estimate of the\n Lutheran Church in a strong but clumsy statement; beyond this,\n however, the one-sidedness of Neander\u2019s standpoint is not\n overcome, and although, alongside of Neander\u2019s exposition, the\n materials and estimates of other standpoints are diligently used,\n and often the very words incorporated, the general result is not\n modified in any essential respect. Written with equal vigour,\n and bearing the impress of a freer ecclesiastical spirit, the\n _Handbuch_ of =Bruno Lindner= (3 vols., Leipzig, 1848 ff.)\n pursues with special diligence the course of the historical\n development of doctrine, and also emphasizes the influence\n of political factors. This same end is attempted in detailed\n treatment with ample production of authoritative documents in\n the _Handbuch_ of the author of the present treatise (vol. I.\n in three divisions, in a 2nd ed.; vol. II. 1, down to the end\n of the Carlovingian Era. Mitau, 1858 ff.). =Milman= (1791-1868)\n an English church historian of the first rank (\u201cHist. of Chr.\n to Abolit. of Pag. in Rom. Emp.\u201d 3 vols., London, 1840; \u201cHistory\n of Latin Christianity to the Pontificate of Nicholas V.\u201d 3 vols.,\n London, 1854), shows himself, especially in the latter work,\n learned, liberal and eloquent, eminently successful in sketching\n character and presenting vivid pictures of the general culture\n and social conditions of the several periods with which he deals.\n The _Vorlesungen_ of =R. Hasse [Hase]=, published after his death\n by K\u00f6hler (2nd ed., Leipz., 1872), form an unassuming treatise,\n which scarcely present any trace of the influence of Hegel\u2019s\n teaching upon their author. =K\u00f6llner= of Giessen writes an\n _Ordnung und Uebersicht der Materien der chr. Kirchengeschichte_,\n Giess., 1864, a diligent, well-arranged, and well packed, but\n somewhat dry and formless work. =H. Schmid= of Erlangen has\n enlarged his compendious _Lehrbuch_ (2nd ed., 1856), into a\n _Handbuch_ of two bulky volumes (Erlang., 1880); and =O. Z\u00f6ckler=\n of Greifswald has contributed to the _Handbuch d. theolog.\n Wissenschaften_ (Erlang., 1884; 2nd ed., 1885) edited by him an\n excellent chronological summary of church history. =Ebrard\u2019s=\n _Handbuch_ (4 vols., Erlang., 1865 ff.) endeavours to give\n adequate expression to this genuine spirit of the Reformed\n conception of historical writing by bringing church history and\n the history of doctrines into organic connection. The attempt is\n there made, however, as Hase has expressed it, with a paradoxical\n rather than an orthodox tendency. The spirit and mind of the\n Reformed Church are presented to us in a more temperate, mild\n and impartial form, inspired by the pectoralism of Neander, in\n the _Handbuch_ of =J. J. Herzog= of Erlangen, \u2020 1882 (3 vols.,\n Erlang., 1876), which assumes the name of _Abriss_ or Compendium.\n This work set for itself the somewhat too ambitious aim\n of supplying the place of the productions of Gieseler and\n Neander,--which, as too diffuse, have unfortunately repelled many\n readers--by a new treatise which should set forth the important\n advances in the treatment of church history since their time,\n and give a more concise sketch of universal church history.\n The _Histoire du Christianisme_ of Prof. =Chastel= of Geneva,\n (5 vols., Par., 1881 ff.) in its earlier volumes occupies the\n standpoint of Neander, and we often miss the careful estimation of\n the more important results of later research. In regard to modern\n church history, notwithstanding every effort after objectivity\n and impartiality, theological sympathies are quite apparent. On\n the other hand, in the comprehensive _History of the Christian\n Church_ by =Philip Schaff= (in 8 vols., Edinb., 1885, reaching\n down to Gregory VIII., A.D. 1073), the rich results of research\n subsequent to the time of Neander are fully and circumspectly\n wrought up in harmony with the general principles of Neander\u2019s\n view of history. Herzog\u2019s _ Realencyclop\u00e6die f\u00fcr protest. Theol.\n u. Kirche_, especially in its 2nd ed. by Herzog and Plitt, and\n after the death of both, by Hauck (18 vols., Leipz., 1877 ff.),\n has won peculiar distinction in the department of church history\n from the contributions of new and powerful writers. Lichtenberger,\n formerly Prof. of Theol. in Strassburg, now in Paris, in his\n _Encyclop\u00e9die des sciences relig. _ has produced a French work\n worthy of a place alongside that of Herzog. _The Dictionary of\n Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines during\n the first eight centuries_, edited with admirable circumspection\n and care by Dr. Wm. Smith and Prof. Wace, combines with a\n completeness and richness of contents never reached before,\n a thoroughgoing examination of the original sources. (4 vols.,\n Lond., 1877 ff.) =Weingarten\u2019s= Chronological Tables for Church\n History (_Zeittafeln z. K.G._ 2nd ed., Brl., 1874) are most\n useful to students as the latest and best helps of that kind.\n\n \u00a7 5.6. In the Catholic Church of Germany too a great activity has\n been displayed in the realm of church history. First of all in\n general Church history we have the diffuse work of the convert\n =von Stolberg= (_Gesch. d. Rel. Jesu_, 15 vols., down to A.D. 430,\n Hamb., 1806 ff., continued by von Kerz, vols. 16-45, and by\n Brischar, vols. 46-52, Mainz, 1825-1859), spreading out into\n hortatory and uncritical details. The elegant work of =Katerkamp=\n (_K.G._, 5 vols., down to 1153, M\u00fcnst., 1819 ff.) followed it,\n inspired by a like mild spirit, but conceived in a more strictly\n scientific way. Liberal, so far as that could be without breaking\n with the hierarchy, is the _Handbuch der K.G._ (3 vols., Bonn,\n 1826 ff.; 6th ed. by Ennen, 2 vols., 1862), by =I. Ign. Ritter=.\n The ample and detailed _Gesch. d. Chr. Rel. u. d. K._ (8 vols.,\n down to 1073, Ravensb., 1824 ff.) of =Locherer= reminds one of\n Schr\u00f6ckh\u2019s work in other respects than that of its voluminousness.\n A decidedly ultramontane conception of church history, with\n frequent flashes of sharp wit, first appears in =Hortig\u2019s=\n _Handbuch_ (2 vols., Landsh., 1826). =D\u00f6llinger= in 1828 publ. as\n a 3rd vol. of this work a _Handbuch d. Neuern K.G._, which, with\n a similar tendency, assumed a more earnest tone. This theologian\n afterwards undertook a thoroughly new and independent work of a\n wider range, which still remains incomplete (_Gesch. d. chr. K._,\n I. 1, 2, partially down to A.D. 630, Landsh., 1833-1835). This\n work with ostensible liberality exposed the notorious fables\n of Romish historical literature; but, on the other hand, with\n brilliant ingenuity, endeavoured carefully to preserve intact\n everything which on ultramontane principles and views might seem\n capable of even partial justification. His _Lehrbuch_ (I. II. 1.,\n Rgsb., 1836 ff.), reaching down only to the Reformation, treats\n the matter in a similar way, and confines itself to a simple\n statement of acknowledged facts. In the meantime =J. A. M\u00f6hler=,\n by his earlier monographical works, and still more decidedly\n by his far-reaching influence as a Professor at T\u00fcbingen, gave\n rise to an expectation of the opening up of a new epoch in the\n treatment of Catholic church history. He represented himself\n as in spiritual sympathy with the forms and means of Protestant\n science, although in decided opposition and conflict with its\n contents, maintaining his faithful adhesion to all elements\n essential to Roman Catholicism. This master, however, was\n prevented by his early death, \u2020 1838, from issuing his complete\n history. This was done almost thirty years after his death by\n Gams, who published the work from his posthumous papers (_K. G._,\n 3 vols., Rgsb., 1867 ff.), with much ultramontane amendment. It\n shows all the defects of such patchwork, with here and there,\n but relatively, very few fruitful cases. Traces of his influence\n still appear in the spirit which pervades the _Lehrb\u00fccher_\n proceeding from his school, by Alzog (\u2020 1878) and Kraus. The\n _Universalgeschichte d. K._, by =J. Alzog= (Mainz, 1841; 9th ed.,\n 2 vols., 1872; transl. into Engl., 3 vols., Lond., 1877), was,\n in its earlier editions, closely associated with the lectures of\n his teacher, not ashamed even to draw from Hase\u2019s fresh-sparkling\n fountains something at times for his own yet rather parched\n meadows, but in his later editions he became ever more\n independent, more thorough in his investigation, more fresh and\n lively in his exposition, making at the same time a praiseworthy\n endeavour at moderation and impartiality of judgment, although\n his adhesion to the Catholic standpoint grows more and more\n strict till it reaches its culmination in the acceptance of the\n dogma of Papal Infallibility. The 10th ed. of his work appeared\n in 1882 under the supervision of Kraus, who contributed much to\n its correction and completion. The _Lehrbuch_ of =F. Xav. Kraus=\n of Freiburg (2nd ed., Trier, 1882) is without doubt among all\n the Roman Catholic handbooks of the present the most solid from\n a scientific point of view, and while diplomatically reserved\n and carefully balanced in its expression of opinions, one of\n the most liberal, and it is distinguished by a clever as well as\n instructive mode of treatment. On the other hand, the W\u00fcrzburgian\n theologian, =J. Hergenr\u00f6ther= (since 1879 Cardinal and Keeper of\n the Papal Archives at Rome), who represents the normal attitude\n of implicit trust in the Vatican, has published a _Handbuch_\n (2 vols. in 4 parts, Freib., 1876 ff.; 2nd ed., 1879, with a\n supplement: Sources, Literat., and Foundations). In this work\n he draws upon the rich stores of his acknowledged scholarship,\n which, however, often strangely forsakes him in treating of the\n history of Protestant theology. It is a skilful and instructive\n exposition, and may very fitly be represented as \u201ca history of\n the church, yea, of the whole world, viewed through correctly set\n Romish spectacles.\u201d Far beneath him in scientific importance, but\n in obstinate ultramontanism far above him, stands the _Lehrbuch_\n of =H. Bruck [Br\u00fcck]= (2nd ed., Mainz, 1877). A far more solid\n production is presented in the _Dissertatt. select\u00e6 in hist.\n ecclst._ of Prof. =B. Jungmann= of Louvain, which treat in\n chronological succession of parties and controversies prominent\n in church history, especially of the historical development of\n doctrine, in a thorough manner and with reference to original\n documents, not without a prepossession in favour of Vaticanism\n (vols. i.-iii., Ratisb., 1880-1883, reaching down to the end\n of the 9th cent.). The _Kirchenlexikon_ of Wetzer and Wette\n (12 vols., Freib., 1847 ff.) gained a prominent place on account\n of the articles on church history contributed by the most eminent\n Catholic scholars, conceived for the most part in the scientific\n spirit of M\u00f6hler. The very copious and of its kind admirably\n executed 2nd ed. by Kaulen (Freib., 1880 ff.), under the\n auspices of Card. Hergenr\u00f6ther, is conceived in a far more\n decidedly Papistic-Vatican spirit, which often does not\n shrink from maintaining and vindicating even the most glaring\n productions of medi\u00e6val superstition, illusion and credulity,\n as grounded in indubitable historical facts. Much more\n important is the historical research in the _Hist. Jahrbuch\n der G\u00f6rres-Gesellschaft_, edited from 1880 by G. H\u00fcffer, and\n from 1883 by B. Gramich, which presents itself as \u201ca means of\n reconciliation for those historians with whom Christ is the\n middle point of history and the Catholic Church the God-ordained\n institution for the education of the human race.\u201d--In the French\n Church the following are the most important productions: the\n _Hist. de l\u2019\u00e9gl._ of =Berault-Bercastel= (24 vols., Par., 1778\n ff.), which have had many French continuators and also a German\n translator (24 vols., Vienna, 1784 ff.); the _Hist. ecclst.\n depuis la cr\u00e9ation_, etc., of =Baron Henrion=, ed. by Migne\n (25 vols., Par., 1852 ff.); and the very diffuse compilation,\n wholly devoted to the glorification of the Papacy and its\n institutions, _Hist. universelle de l\u2019\u00e9gl. Cath._ of the Louvain\n French Abb\u00e9 Rohrbacher (29 vols., Par., 1842 ff.; of which an\n English transl. is in course of publication). Finally, the\n scientifically careful exposition of the Old Catholic =J. Rieks=,\n _Gesch. d. chr. K. u. d. Papstthums_, Lahr., 1882, though in some\n respects onesided, may be mentioned as deserving of notice for its\n general impartiality and love of the truth.\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY OF THE PREPARATION FOR CHRISTIANITY.\n\n The pre-Christian World preparing the way\n of the Christian Church.\n\n\n \u00a7 6. THE STANDPOINT OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY.\n\n The middle point of the epochs and developments of the human race is\nthe incarnation of God in Christ. With it begins, upon it rests, the\nfulness of the time (Gal. iv. 4), and toward it the whole pre-Christian\nhistory is directed as anticipatory or progressive. This preparation has\nits beginning in the very cradle of humanity, and is soon parted in the\ntwo directions of Heathenism and Judaism. In the former case we have the\ndevelopment of merely human powers and capacities; in the latter case\nthis development is carried on by continuous divine revelation. Both\ncourses of development, distinguished not only by the means, but also by\nthe task undertaken and the end aimed at, run alongside of one another,\nuntil in the fulness of the time they are united in Christianity and\ncontribute thereto the fruits and results of what was essential and\ncharacteristic in their several separate developments.\n\n\n \u00a7 7. HEATHENISM.\n\n The primitive race of man, surrounded by rich and luxuriant forms\nof nature, put this abundance of primeval power in the place of the\npersonal and supramundane God. Surrounded by such an inexhaustible\nfulness of life and pleasures, man came to look upon nature as more\nworthy of sacrifice and reverence than a personal God removed far off\ninto supramundane heights. Thus arose heathenism as to its general\nfeatures: a self-absorption into the depths of the life of nature,\na deification of nature, a worshipping of nature (Rom. i. 21 ff.),\ntherefore, the religion of nature, in accordance with which, too,\nits moral character is determined. Most conspicuously by means of its\nintellectual culture has heathenism given preliminary aid to the church\nfor the performing of her intellectual task. And even the pagan empire,\nwith its striving after universal dominion, as well as the active\ncommercial intercourse in the old heathen world, contributed in\npreparing the way of the church.\n\n \u00a7 7.1. =The Religious Character of Heathenism.=--The hidden\n powers of the life of nature and the soul, not intellectually\n apprehended in the form of abstract knowledge, but laid hold of\n in immediate practice, and developed in speculation and mysticism,\n in natural magic and soothsaying, and applied to all the\n relations of human life, seemed revelations of the eternal spirit\n of nature, and, mostly by means of the intervention of prominent\n personalities and under the influence of various geographical\n and ethnographical peculiarities, produced manifold systems of\n the religion of nature. Common to all, and deeply rooted in the\n nature of heathenism, is the distinction between the _esoteric_\n religion of the priests, and the _exoteric_ religion of the\n people. The former is essentially a speculative ideal pantheism;\n the latter is for the most part a mythical and ceremonial\n polytheism. The religious development of heathenism has\n nevertheless been by no means stripped of all elements of truth.\n Apart from casual remnants of the primitive divine revelation,\n which, variously contorted on their transmission through heathen\n channels, may lie at the foundation or be inwrought into its\n religious systems, the hothouse-like development of the religion\n of nature has anticipated many a religious truth which, in the\n way of divine revelation, could only slowly and at a late period\n come to maturity, but has perverted and distorted it to such a\n degree that it was little better than a caricature. To this class\n belong, for example, the pantheistic theories of the Trinity and\n the Incarnation, the dualistic acknowledgment of the reality of\n evil, etc. To this also especially belongs the offering of human\n victims which has been practised in all religions of nature\n without exception,--a terrible and to some extent prophetic cry\n of agony from God-forsaken men, which is first toned down on\n Golgotha into hymns of joy and thanksgiving. Witness is given to\n the power and energy, with which the religions of nature in the\n time of their bloom took possession of and ruled over the minds\n and emotions of men, by the otherwise unexampled sacrifices\n and self-inflictions, such as hecatombs, offerings of children,\n mutilation, prostitution, etc., to which its votaries submitted,\n and not less the almost irresistible charm which it exercised\n again and again upon the people of Israel during the whole course\n of their earlier history. It also follows from this that the\n religion of heathenism does not consist in naked lies and pure\n illusions. There are elements of truth in the lies, which gave\n this power to the religion of nature. There are anticipations\n of redemption, though these were demoniacally perverted, which\n imparted to it this charm. There are mysterious phenomena of\n natural magic and soothsaying which seemed to establish their\n divine character. But the worship of nature had the fate of all\n unnatural, precocious development. The truth was soon swallowed\n up by the lies, the power of development and life, of which more\n than could possibly be given was demanded, was soon consumed and\n used up. The blossoms fell before the fruit had set. Mysteries\n and oracles, magic and soothsaying, became empty forms, or organs\n of intentional fraud and common roguery. And so it came to pass\n that one harauspex could not look upon another without laughing.\n Unbelief mocked everything, superstition assumed its most absurd\n and utterly senseless forms, and religions of an irrational\n mongrel type sought in vain to quicken again a nerveless and\n soulless heathenism.\n\n \u00a7 7.2. =The Moral Character of Heathenism.=--Religious character\n and moral character go always hand in hand. Thus, too, the moral\n life among heathen peoples was earnest, powerful, and true,\n or lax, defective, and perverse, in the same proportion as was\n the religious life of that same period. The moral faults of\n heathenism flow from its religious faults. It was a religion of\n the present, to whose gods therefore were also unhesitatingly\n ascribed all the imperfections of the present. In this way\n religion lost all its power for raising men out of the mire and\n dust surrounding them. The partly immoral myths sanctioned or\n excused by the example of the gods the grossest immoralities. As\n the type and pattern of reproductive power in the deified life\n of nature, the gratification of lust was often made the central\n and main point in divine service. The idea of pure humanity was\n wholly wanting in heathenism. It could only reach the conception\n of nationality, and its virtues were only the virtues of citizens.\n In the East despotism crushed, and in the West fierce national\n antipathies stifled the acknowledgment of, universal human rights\n and the common rank of men, so that the foreigner and the slave\n were not admitted to have any claims. As the worth of man was\n measured only by his political position, the significance of\n woman was wholly overlooked and repudiated. Her position was at\n most only that of the maid of the man, and was degraded to the\n lowest depths in the East by reason of the prevalent polygamy.\n Notwithstanding all these great and far-reaching moral faults,\n heathenism, in the days of its bloom and power, at least in those\n departments of the moral life, such as politics and municipal\n matters, in which pantheism and polytheism did not exert\n their relaxing influence, had still preserved much high moral\n earnestness and an astonishing energy. But when the religion of\n their fathers, reduced to emptiness and powerlessness, ceased to\n be the soul and bearer of those departments of life, all moral\n power was also withdrawn from them. The moral deterioration\n reached its culminating point in the dissolute age of the Roman\n Emperors. In this indescribable state of moral degeneration, the\n church found heathenism, when it began its spiritual regeneration\n of the world.\n\n \u00a7 7.3. =The Intellectual Culture in Heathenism.=--The\n intellectual culture of heathenism has won in regard to the\n church a twofold significance. On the one hand it affords a\n pattern, and on the other it presents a warning beacon. Pagan\n science and art, in so far as they possess a generally culturing\n influence and present to the Christian church a special type\n for imitation, are but the ultimate results of the intellectual\n activity which manifested itself among the Greeks and Romans\n in philosophy, poetry and historical writing, which have in two\n directions, as to form and as to contents, become the model for\n the Christian church, preparing and breaking up its way. On the\n one side they produced forms for the exercise of the intellectual\n life, which by their exactness and clearness, by their variety\n and many-sidedness, afforded to the new intellectual contents of\n Christianity a means for its formal exposition and expression.\n But, on the other side, they also produced, from profound\n consideration of and research into nature and spirit, history\n and life, ideas and reflections which variously formed an\n anticipation of the ideas of redemption and prepared the soil\n for their reception. The influence, however, on the other hand,\n which oriental forms of culture had upon the development and\n construction of the history of redemption, had already exhausted\n itself upon Judaism. What the symbolism of orientalism had\n contributed to Judaism, namely the form in which the divine\n contents communicated by Old Testament prophesy should be\n presented and unfolded, the dialectic of classical heathenism was\n to Christianity, in which the symbolic covering of Judaism was to\n be torn off and the thought of divine redemption to be manifested\n and to be laid hold of in its purely intellectual form. The\n influence of heathenism upon the advancing church in the other\n direction as affording a picture of what was to be avoided, was\n represented not less by Eastern culture than by the classical\n culture of the Greeks and Romans. Here it was exclusively the\n contents, and indeed the ungodly anti-Christian contents, the\n specifically heathen substance of the pagan philosophy, theosophy,\n and mysteriosophy, which by means of tolerated forms of culture\n sought to penetrate and completely paganize Christianity. To\n heathenism, highly cultured but pluming itself in the arrogance\n of its sublime wisdom, Christianity, by whose suggestive\n profundity it had been at first attracted, appeared altogether\n too simple, unphilosophical, unspeculative, to satisfy the\n supposed requirements of the culture of the age. There was needed,\n it was thought, fructification and enriching by the collective\n wisdom of the East and the West before religion could in truth\n present itself as absolute and perfect.\n\n \u00a7 7.4. =The Hellenic Philosophy.=--What is true of Greek-Roman\n culture generally on its material and formal sides, that it\n powerfully influenced Christianity now budding into flower,\n is preeminently true of the Greek Philosophy. Regarded as\n a prefiguration of Christianity, Greek philosophy presents\n a negative side in so far as it led to the dissolution of\n heathenism, and a positive side in so far as it, by furnishing\n form and contents, contributed to the construction of\n Christianity. From its very origin Hellenic philosophy\n contributed to the negative process by undermining the people\u2019s\n faith in heathenism, preparing for the overthrow of idolatry, and\n leading heathenism to take a despondent view of its own future.\n It is with =Socrates=, who died in B.C. 399, that the positive\n prefiguring of Christianity on the part of Greek philosophy comes\n first decidedly into view. His humble confession of ignorance,\n his founding of the claim to wisdom on the \u0393\u03bd\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd,\n the tracing of his deepest thoughts and yearnings back to\n divine suggestions (his \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), his grave resignation to\n circumstances, and his joyful hope in a more blessed future,\n may certainly be regarded as faint anticipations and prophetic\n adumbrations of the phenomena of Christian faith and life.\n =Plato=, who died B.C. 348, with independent speculative and\n poetic power, wrought the scattered hints of his teacher\u2019s wisdom\n into an organically articulated theory of the universe, which\n in its anticipatory profundity approached more nearly to the\n Christian theory of the universe than any other outside the range\n of revelation. His philosophy leads men to an appreciation of his\n God-related nature, takes him past the visible and sensible to\n the eternal prototypes of all beauty, truth and goodness, from\n which he has fallen away, and awakens in him a profound longing\n after his lost possessions. In regard to matter =Aristotle=, who\n died B.C. 322, does not stand so closely related to Christianity\n as Plato, but in regard to form, he has much more decidedly\n influenced the logical thinking and systematizing of later\n Christian sciences. In these two, however, are reached the\n highest elevation of the philosophical thinking of the Greeks,\n viewed in itself as well as in its positive and constructive\n influence upon the church. As philosophy down to that time,\n consciously or unconsciously, had wrought for the dissolution\n of the religion of the people, it now proceeded to work its own\n overthrow, and brought into ever deeper, fuller and clearer\n consciousness the despairing estimate of the world regarding\n itself. This is shown most significantly in the three schools\n of philosophy which were most widely spread at the entrance of\n the church into the Gr\u00e6co-Roman world, Epicureanism, Stoicism,\n and Scepticism. =Epicurus=, who died B.C. 271, in his philosophy\n seeks the highest good in pleasure, recognises in the world only\n a play of fortune, regards the soul as mortal, and supposes that\n the gods in their blissful retirement no longer take any thought\n about the world. =Stoicism=, founded by Zeno, who died in B.C.\n 260, over against the Epicurean deism set up a hylozoistic\n pantheism, made the development of the world dependent upon the\n unalterable necessity of fate, which brings about a universal\n conflagration, out of which again a new world springs to follow\n a similar course. To look on pleasure with contempt, to scorn\n pain, and in case of necessity to end a fruitless life by\n suicide--these constitute the core of all wisdom. When he has\n reached such a height in the mastery of self and of the world the\n wise man is his own god, finding in himself all that he needs.\n Finally, in conflict with Stoicism arose the =Scepticism= of the\n _New Academy_, at the head of which were Arcesilaus who died B.C.\n 240 and Carneades who died B.C. 128. This school renounced all\n knowledge of truth as something really unattainable, and in the\n moderation (\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae) of every opinion placed the sum of theoretic\n wisdom, while it regarded the sum of all practical wisdom to\n consist in the evidence of every passionate or exciting effort.\n\n \u00a7 7.5. =The Heathen State.=--In the grand endeavour of heathenism\n to redeem itself by its own resources and according to its own\n pleasure, the attempt was finally made by the concentration of\n all forces into one colossal might. To gather into one point all\n the mental and bodily powers of the whole human race, and through\n them also all powers of nature and the products of all zones\n and lands, and to put them under one will, and then in this\n will to recognise the personal and visible representation of the\n godhead--to this was heathenism driven by an inner necessity.\n Hence arose a struggle, and in consequence of the pertinacity\n with which it was carried on, one kingdom after another was\n overthrown, until the climax was reached in the Roman empire.\n Yet even this empire was broken and dissolved when opposed by the\n spiritual power of the kingdom of God. Like all the endeavours\n of heathenism, this struggle for =absolute sovereignty= had a\n twofold aspect; there are thereby made prominent men\u2019s own ways\n and God\u2019s ways, the undivine aims of men, and the blessed results\n which God\u2019s government of the world could secure for them. We\n have here to do first of all simply with the Roman universal\n empire, but the powers that rose in succession after it are only\n rejuvenations and powerful continuations of the endeavour of the\n earlier power, and so that is true of every state which is true\n of the Roman. Its significance as a preparer of the way for the\n church is just this, that in consequence of the articulation of\n the world into one great state organisation, the various stages\n and elements of culture found among the several civilized races\n hitherto isolated, contributed now to one universal civilization,\n and a rapid circulation of the new life-blood driven by the\n church through the veins of the nations was made possible and\n easy. With special power and universal success had the exploits\n of Alexander the Great in this direction made a beginning, which\n reached perfection under the Roman empire. The ever advancing\n prevalence of one language, the Greek, which at the time of the\n beginning of the church was spoken and understood in all quarters\n of the Roman empire, which seemed, like a temporary suspension\n of the doom of the confusion of languages which accompanied the\n rise of heathenism (Gen. xi.), to celebrate its return to the\n divine favour, belongs also pre-eminently to those preparatory\n influences. And as the heathen state sought after the\n concentration of all might, =Industry= and =Trade=, moved by\n the same principle, sought after the concentration of wealth and\n profit. But as worldly enterprise for its own ends made paths for\n universal commerce over wastes and seas, and visited for purposes\n of trade the remotest countries and climes, it served unwittingly\n and unintentionally the higher purposes of divine grace by\n opening a way for the spread of the message of the gospel.\n\n\n \u00a7 8. JUDAISM.\n\n In a land which, like the people themselves, combined the character\nof insular exclusiveness with that of a central position in the ancient\nworld, Israel, on account of the part which it was called to play in\nuniversal history, had to be the receiver and communicator of God\u2019s\nrevelations of His salvation, had to live quiet and apart, taking\nlittle to do with the world\u2019s business; having, on the other hand, the\nassurance from God\u2019s promise that disasters threatened by heathenish\nlove of conquest and oppression would be averted. This position and\nthis task were, indeed, only too often forgotten. Only too often did\nthe Israelites mix themselves up in worldly affairs, with which they\nhad no concern. Only too often by their departure from their God did\nthey make themselves like the heathen nations in religion, worship,\nand conversation, so that for correction and punishment they had\noften to be put under a heavy yoke. Yet the remnant of the holy seed\n(Isa. iv. 3; vi. 13) which was never wholly wanting even in times of\ngeneral apostasy, as well as the long-suffering and faithfulness of\ntheir God, ensured the complete realisation of Israel\u2019s vocation, even\nthough the unspiritual mass of the people finally rejected the offered\nredemption.\n\n \u00a7 8.1. =Judaism under special Training of God through the Law and\n Prophecy.=--Abraham was chosen as a single individual (Isa. li. 2),\n and, as the creator of something new, God called forth from an\n unfruitful womb the seed of promise. As saviour and redeemer\n from existing misery He delivered the people of promise from the\n oppression of Egyptian slavery. In the Holy Land the family must\n work out its own development, but in order that the family might\n be able unrestrainedly to expand into a great nation, it was\n necessary that it should first go down into Egypt. Moses led the\n people thus disciplined out of the foreign land, and gave them\n a theocratic constitution, law, and worship as means for the\n accomplishment of their calling, as a model and a schoolmaster\n leading on to future perfection (Gal. iii. 24; Heb. x. 1). The\n going out of Egypt was the birth of the nation, the giving of\n the law at Sinai was its consecration as a holy nation. Joshua\n set forth the last condition for an independent people, the\n possession of a country commensurate with the task of the nation,\n a land of their own that would awaken patriotic feelings. Now the\n theocracy under the form of a purely popular institution under\n the fostering care of the priesthood could and should have borne\n fruit, but the period of the Judges proves that those two factors\n of development were not sufficient, and so now two new agencies\n make their appearance; the Prophetic order as a distinct and\n regular office, constituted for the purpose of being a mouth\n to God and a conscience to the state, and the Kingly order for\n the protecting of the theocracy against hurt from without and\n for the establishment of peace within her borders. By David\u2019s\n successes the theocracy attained unto a high degree of political\n significance, and by Solomon\u2019s building of the temple the typical\n form of worship reached the highest point of its development.\n In spite, however, of prophecy and royalty, the people, ever\n withdrawing themselves more and more from their true vocation,\n were not able outwardly and inwardly to maintain the high level.\n The division of the kingdom, internal feuds and conflicts,\n their untheocratic entanglement in the affairs of the world, the\n growing tendency to fall away from the worship of Jehovah and\n to engage in the worship of high places, and calves, and nature,\n called down incessantly the divine judgments, in consequence of\n which they fell a prey to the heathen. Yet this discipline was\n not in vain. Cyrus decreed their return and their independent\n organization, and even prophecy was granted for a time to the\n restored community for its establishment and consolidation. Under\n these political developments has prophecy, in addition to its\n immediate concern with its own times in respect of teaching,\n discipline, and exhortation, given to the promise of future\n salvation its fullest expression, bringing a bright ray of\n comfort and hope to light up the darkness of a gloomy present.\n The fading memories of the happy times of the brilliant victories\n of David and the glorious peaceful reign of Solomon formed the\n bases of the delineations of the future Messianic kingdom, while\n the disasters, the suffering and the humiliation of the people\n during the period of their decay gave an impulse to Messianic\n longings for a Messiah suffering for the sins of the people\n and taking on Himself all their misery. And now, after it\n had effected its main purpose, prophecy was silenced, to be\n reawakened only in a complete and final form when the fulness\n of time had come.\n\n \u00a7 8.2. =Judaism after the Cessation of Prophecy.=--The time had\n now come when the chosen people, emancipated from the immediate\n discipline of divine revelation, but furnished with the results\n and experiences of a rich course of instruction, and accompanied\n by the law as a schoolmaster and by the light of the prophetic\n word, should themselves work out the purpose of their calling.\n The war of extermination which Antiochus Epiphanes in his heathen\n fanaticism waged against Judaism, was happily and victoriously\n repelled, and once more the nation won its political independence\n under the Maccabees. At last, however, owing to the increasing\n corruption of the ruling Maccabean family, they were ensnared by\n the craft of the Roman empire. The Syrian religious persecution\n and the subsequent oppression of the Romans roused the national\n spirit and the attachment to the religion of their fathers to the\n most extreme exclusiveness, fanatical hatred, and proud scorn of\n everything foreign, and converted the Messianic hope into a mere\n political and frantically carnal expectation. True piety more\n and more disappeared in a punctilious legalism and ceremonialism,\n in a conceited self-righteousness and boastful confidence in\n their own good works. Priests and scribes were eagerly bent\n on fostering this tendency and increasing the unsusceptibility\n of the masses for the spirituality of the redemption that was\n drawing nigh, by multiplying and exaggerating external rules\n and by perverse interpretation of scripture. But in spite of all\n these perverting and far-reaching tendencies, there was yet in\n quiet obscurity a sacred plantation of the true Israel (John i. 47;\n Luke i. 6; ii. 25, 38, etc.), as a garden of God for the first\n reception of salvation in Christ.\n\n \u00a7 8.3. =The Synagogues.=--The institution of the =Synagogues=\n was of the greatest importance for the spread and development of\n post-exilian Judaism. They had their origin in the consciousness\n that, besides the continuance of the symbolical worship of the\n temple, a ministry of the word for edification by means of the\n revelation of God in the law and the prophets was, after the\n withdrawal of prophecy, all the more a pressing need and duty.\n But they also afforded a nursery for the endeavour to widen and\n contract the law of Moses by Rabbinical rules, for the tendency\n to external legalism and hypocrisy, for the national arrogance\n and the carnal Messianic expectations, which from them passed\n over into the life of the people. On the other hand, the\n synagogues, especially outside of Palestine, among the dispersion,\n won a far-reaching significance for the church by reason of\n their missionary tendency. For here where every Sabbath the holy\n scripture of the Old Testament was read in the Greek translation\n of the Septuagint and expounded, a convenient opportunity was\n given to heathens longing for salvation to gain acquaintance with\n the revelations and promises of God in the Old Covenant, and here\n there was already a place for the first ministers of the gospel,\n from which they could deliver their message to an assembled\n multitude of people from among the Jews and Gentiles. (Sch\u00fcrer,\n \u201cHist. of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ.\u201d Div. ii.,\n vol. 2., \u201cThe School and Synagogue.\u201d pp. 44-89, Edin., 1885.)\n\n \u00a7 8.4. =Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.=--The strict,\n traditionally legalistic, carnally particularistic tendency\n of Post-Exilian Judaism had its representatives and supporters\n in the sect of the =Pharisees= (\u05e4\u05b0\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd, \u1f00\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), so called\n because their main endeavour was to maintain the strictest\n separation from everything heathenish, foreign, and ceremonially\n unclean. By their ostentatious display of zeal for the law, their\n contempt for everything not Jewish, their democratic principles\n and their arrogant patriotism, they won most completely the\n favour of the people; they shared the evil fortunes of the\n Maccabean princes, and became the bitterest enemies of the\n Herodians, and entertained a burning fanatical hatred to the\n Romans. They held sway in the synagogues to such an extent\n that the names Scribes and Pharisees were regarded as almost\n synonymous, and even in the Sanhedrim they secured many seats.\n In the times of Jesus the schools of Hillel and Shammai contended\n with one another, the former pleading for somewhat lax views,\n especially in reference to divorce and the obligation of oaths,\n while the latter insisted upon the most rigorous interpretation\n of the law. Both, however, were agreed in the recognition of oral\n tradition, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, as a binding authority and\n an essential supplement to the law of Moses. In direct opposition\n to them stand the =Sadducees=, out of sympathy with the\n aspirations of the people, and abandoning wholly the sacred\n traditions, and joining themselves in league with the Herodians\n and Romans. The name originally designated them as descendants of\n the old temple aristocracy represented by the family of the high\n priest Zadok, and, in consequence of the similarity in sound\n between \u05e6\u05b7\u05d3\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05e7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd and \u05e6\u05b7\u05d3\u05bc\u05d9\u05b4\u05e7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd, gave expression to their claim to be\n regarded as essentially and truly righteous because of their\n outward adherence to the Mosaic law. Proceeding on the principle\n that virtue as a free act of man has in it its own worth and\n reward, just as vice has in it its own punishment, they rejected\n the doctrine of a future judgment, denied the doctrine of a\n resurrection, the existence of angels and spirits, and the\n doctrine of the divine foreknowledge.[2] The =Essenes=, not\n mentioned in the Bible, but named by Philo, Josephus, and the\n elder Pliny, form a third sect. Their name was probably derived\n from \u05d7\u05b2\u05e1\u05b5\u05d0, pious. The original germ of their society is found\n in distinct colonies on the banks of the Dead Sea, which kept\n apart from the other Jews, and recognised even among themselves\n four different grades of initiation, each order being strictly\n separated from the others. A member was received only after\n a three years\u2019 novitiate, and undertook to keep secret the\n mysteries of the order. Community of goods in the several\n communities and clans, meals in common accompanied by religious\n ceremonies, frequent prayers in the early morning with the face\n directed to the rising sun, oft repeated washings and cleansings,\n diligent application to agriculture and other peaceful\n occupations, abstaining from the use of flesh and wine, from\n trade and every warlike pursuit, from slavery and taking of\n oaths, perhaps also abstinence from marriage in the higher orders,\n were the main conditions of membership in their association.\n The Sabbath was observed with great strictness, but sacrifices\n of blood were abolished, and all anointing with oil was regarded\n as polluting. They still, however, maintained connection with\n Judaism by sending gifts to the temple. So far the order may\n fairly be regarded, as it is by Ritschl, as a spiritualizing\n exaggeration of the Mosaic idea of the priestly character that\n had independently grown up on Jewish soil, and indeed especially\n as an attempt to realize the calling set forth in Exod. xix. 5, 6,\n and repudiated in Exod. xx. 19, 20, unto all Israelites to be a\n spiritual priesthood. But when, on the other hand, the Essenes,\n according to Josephus, considered the body as a prison in which\n the soul falling from its ethereal existence is to be confined\n until freed from its fetters by death it returns again to heaven,\n this can scarcely be explained as originating from any other than\n a heathen source, especially from the widely spread influences\n of Neo-Pythagoreanism (\u00a7 24). Lucius (1881) derives the name\n and seeks their origin from the Asid\u00e6ans, Chasidim, or Pious,\n in 1 Macc. ii. 42; vii. 13; and 2 Macc. xiv. 6. Very striking\n too is Hilgenfeld\u2019s carefully weighed and ably sustained theory\n (_Ketzergesch._, pp. 87-149), that their descent is to be traced\n from the Kenite Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.; Judg. i. 16), and their\n name from the city Gerasa, west of the Dead Sea, called in\n Josephus also Essa, where the Rechabites, abandoning their tent\n life, formed a settlement. In the time of Josephus the Essenes\n numbered about four thousand. In consequence of the Jewish war,\n which brought distress upon them, as well as upon the Christians,\n they were led into friendly relations with Christianity; but even\n when adopting the Christian doctrines, they still carried with\n them many of their earlier tenets (\u00a7 28, 2, 3).[3]\n\n\n \u00a7 9. SAMARITANISM.\n\n The Samaritans, who came into existence at the time of the overthrow\nof the kingdom of Israel, from the blending of Israelitish and\nheathenish elements, desired fellowship with the Jewish colony that\nreturned from the Babylonish captivity, but were repelled on account\nof their manifold compromises with pagan practice. And although an\nexpelled Jew named Manasseh purified their religion as far as possible\nof heathenish elements, and gave them a temple and order of worship on\nMount Gerizim, this only increased the hatred of the Jews against them.\nHolding fast to the Judaism taught them by Manasseh, the Samaritans\nnever adopted the refinements and perversions of later Judaism. Their\nMessianic expectations remained purer, their particularism less severe.\nWhile thus rendered capable of forming a more impartial estimate of\nChristianity, they were also inclined upon the whole, because of the\nhatred and contempt which they had to endure from Pharisaic Judaism,\nto look with favour upon Christianity despised and persecuted as they\nthemselves had been (John iv. 41; Acts viii. 5 ff.). On the other hand,\nthe syncretic-heathen element, which still flourished in Samaritanism,\nshowed its opposition to Christianity by positive reactionary attempts\n(\u00a7 25, 2).[4]\n\n\n \u00a7 10. INTERCOURSE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND HEATHENISM.\n\n Alexander the Great\u2019s conquest of the world brought into connection\nwith one another the most diverse elements of culture in antiquity.\nLeast of all could Judaism outside of Palestine, the _diaspora_, living\namid the influences of heathen or Hellenic culture and ways of viewing\nthings, withdraw itself from the syncretic current of the age. The Jews\nof Eastern Asia maintained a closer connection and spiritual affinity\nwith the exclusive Palestinian Rabbinism, and the heathen element,\nwhich here penetrated into their religious conceptions, became, chiefly\nthrough the Talmud, the common property of post-Christian Judaism. But\nheathenism also, contemptible as Judaism appeared to it, was susceptible\nto Jewish influences, impressed by the deeper religious contents of\nJudaism, and though only sporadic, instances of such influence were by\nno means rare.\n\n \u00a7 10.1. =Influence of Heathenism upon Judaism.=--This reached\n its greatest strength in Egypt, the special centre and source of\n the syncretic tendencies of the age. Forming for itself by means\n of the adoption of Greek culture and especially of the Platonic\n philosophy a more universal basis of culture, Jewish Hellenism\n flourished in Alexandria. After Aristobulus, who wrote \u1f18\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039c\u03c9\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, about B.C. 170, now only found in a fragment\n of doubtful authority, and the author of the Book of Wisdom,\n the chief representative of this tendency was the Alexandrian\n Jew Philo, a contemporary of Christ. His Platonism enriched\n by elements drawn from Old Testament revelation and from\n the doctrines of the Essenes has on many points carried its\n speculation to the very borders of Christianity, and has formed\n a scaffolding for the Christian philosophy of the Church Fathers.\n He taught that all nations have received a share of divine truth,\n but that the actual founder and father of all true philosophy\n was Moses, whose legislation and teaching formed the source of\n information for even the Greek Philosophy and Mysteriosophy.\n But it is only by means of allegorical interpretation that such\n depths can be discovered. God is \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd, matter \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd. An\n intermediate world, corresponding to the Platonic world of ideas,\n is the \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, consisting of innumerable spirits and\n powers, angels and souls of men, but bound together into a unity\n in and issuing from the Word of God, who as the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2\n was embraced in God from eternity, coming forth from God as the\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 for the creation of the world (thought and word).\n The visible world, on account of the physical impotence of matter,\n is an imperfect representation of the \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, etc. On the\n ground of the writing _De vita contemplativa_ attributed to Philo,\n the =Therapeut\u00e6=, or worshippers of God, mentioned therein, had\n been regarded as a contemplative ascetic sect related to the\n Essenes, affected by an Alexandrian philosophical spirit, living\n a sort of monastic life in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, until\n Lucius (Strassb., 1879) withdrew them from the domain of history\n to that of Utopian romance conceived in support of a special\n theory. This scholar has proved that the writing referred to\n cannot possibly be assigned to Philo, but must have been composed\n about the end of the third century in the interest of Christian\n monasticism, for which it presented an idealizing apology. This,\n however, has been contested by Weingarten, in Herzog, x. 761, on\n good grounds, and the origin of the book has been assigned to a\n period soon after Philo, when Hellenistic Judaism was subjected\n to a great variety of religious and philosophical influences.[5]\n\n \u00a7 10.2. =Influence of Judaism upon Heathenism.=--The heathen\n state showed itself generally tolerant toward Judaism. Alexander\n the Great and his successors, the Ptolemies, to some extent\n also the Seleucid\u00e6, allowed the Jews the free exercise of\n their religion and various privileges, while the Romans allowed\n Judaism to rank as a _religio licita_. Nevertheless the Jews were\n universally despised and hated. Tacitus calls them _despectissima\n pars servientium, teterrima gens_; and even the better class of\n writers, such as Manetho, Justin, Tacitus, gave currency to the\n most absurd stories and malicious calumnies against them. In\n opposition to these the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus took\n pains to overcome the prejudices of Greeks and Romans against\n his nation, by presenting to them its history and institutions\n in the most favourable light. But on the other side, the Greek\n translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, as well\n as the multitude of Jewish synagogues, which during the Roman\n period were scattered over the whole world, afforded to every\n heathen interested therein the opportunity of discovering by\n personal examination and inquiry the characteristic principles\n of Judaism. When, therefore, we consider the utterly corrupt\n condition of heathenism, we cannot wonder that Judaism, in spite\n of all the contempt that was thrown upon it, would attract,\n by reason of its hoary antiquity and the sublime simplicity of\n its creed, the significance of its worship, and its Messianic\n promises, many of the better aspiring heathens, who were no\n longer satisfied with their sorely degraded forms of religion.\n And though indeed only a few enrolled themselves as \u201c_Proselytes\n of Righteousness_,\u201d entering the Jewish community by submitting\n to the rite of circumcision, the number of the \u201c_Proselytes of\n the Gate_\u201d who without observing the whole of the ceremonial law\n undertook to abandon their idols and to worship Jehovah, in all\n ranks of society, mostly women, was very considerable, and it\n was just among them that Christianity found the most hearty and\n friendly acceptance.\n\n\n \u00a7 11. THE FULNESS OF TIME.\n\n The fulness of the olden time had come when the dawn of a new era\nburst forth over the mountains of Judea. All that Judaism and heathenism\nhad been able to do in preparing the way for this new era had now been\ndone. Heathenism was itself conscious of its impotence and unfitness\nfor satisfying the religious needs of the human spirit, and wherever it\nhad not fallen into dreary unbelief or wild superstition, it struggled\nand agonized, aspiring after something better. In this way negatively\na path was prepared for the church. In science and art, as well as in\ngeneral intellectual culture, heathenism had produced something great\nand imperishable; and ineffectual as these in themselves had proved to\nrestore again to man the peace which he had lost and now sought after,\nthey might become effectually helpful for such purposes when made\nsubservient to the true salvation. And so far heathenism was a positive\nhelper to the church. The impression that a crisis in the world\u2019s\nhistory was near at hand was universal among Jews and Gentiles. The\nprofound realization of the need was a presage of the time of fulfilment.\nAll true Israelites waited for the promised Messiah, and even in\nheathenism the ancient hope of the return of the Golden Age was again\nbrought to the front, and had, from the sacred scriptures and synagogues\nof the Jews, obtained a new holding ground and a definite direction.\nThe heathen state, too, made its own contribution toward preparing the\nway of the church. One sceptre and one language united the whole world,\na universal peace prevailed, and the most widely extended commercial\nintercourse gave opportunity for the easy and rapid spread of saving\ntruth.\n\n\n\n\n THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS.\n\n The Founding of the Church by Christ and His Apostles.\n\n\n \u00a7 12. CHARACTER OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEGINNINGS.\n\n The propriety in a treatise on general church history of separating\nthe Times of Jesus and the Times of the Apostles, closely connected\ntherewith, from the History of the Development of the Church, and\ngiving to them a distinct place under the title of the History of the\nBeginnings, rests on the fact that in those times we have the germs and\nprinciples of all that follows. The unique capacity of the Apostles,\nresulting from special enlightenment and endowment, makes that which\nthey have done of vital importance for all subsequent development. In\nour estimation of each later form of the church\u2019s existence we must\ngo back to the doctrine and practice of Christ and His Apostles as the\nstandard, not as to a finally completed form that has exhausted all\npossibilities of development, and made all further advance and growth\nimpossible or useless, but rather as to the authentic fresh germs and\nbeginnings of the church, so that not only what in later development is\nfound to have existed in the same form in the beginning is recognised as\ngenuinely Christian, but also that which is seen to be a development and\ngrowth of that primitive form.\n\n\n\n\n I. THE LIFE OF JESUS.\n\n\n \u00a7 13. JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.\n\n \u201cBut when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son,\nmade of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the\nlaw, that we might receive the adoption of sons\u201d (Gal. iv. 4, 5). In\naccordance with prophetic announcements, He was born in Bethlehem as the\nSon of David, and, after John the Baptist, the last of the prophets of\nthe Old Covenant, had prepared His way by the preaching of repentance\nand the baptism of repentance, He began in the thirtieth year of His age\nHis fulfilment by life and teaching of the law and the prophets. With\ntwelve chosen disciples He travelled up and down through the land of the\nJews, preaching the kingdom of God, helping and healing, and by miracles\nand signs confirming His divine mission and doctrine. The Pharisees\ncontradicted and persecuted Him, the Sadducees disregarded Him, and\nthe people vacillated between acclamations and execrations. After\nthree years\u2019 activity, amid the hosannas of the multitude, He made His\nroyal entry into the city of His kingly ancestors. But the same crowd,\ndisappointed in their political and carnal Messianic expectations, a\nfew days later raised the cry: Crucify Him, crucify Him! Thus then He\nsuffered according to the gracious good pleasure of the Father the death\nof the cross for the sins of the world. The Prince of life, however,\ncould not be holden of death. He burst the gates of Hades, as well as\nthe barriers of the grave, and rose again the third day. For forty days\nHe lingered here below, promised His disciples the gift of His Holy\nSpirit, and commissioned them to preach the gospel to all nations. Then\nupon His ascension He assumed the divine form of which He had emptied\nHimself during His incarnation, and sits now at the right hand of power\nas the Head of His church and the Lord of all that is named in heaven\nand on earth, until visibly and in glory, according to the promise, He\nreturns again at the restitution of all things.\n\n \u00a7 13.1. In regard to the =year of the birth= and the =year of the\n death= of the Redeemer no absolutely certain result can now be\n attained. The usual Christian chronology constructed by Dionysius\n Exiguus in the sixth century, first employed by the Venerable\n Bede, and brought into official use by Charlemagne, assumes the\n year 754 A.U.C. as the date of Christ\u2019s birth, which is evidently\n wrong, since, in A.D. 750 or 751, Herod the Great was already\n dead. Zumpt takes the seventh, others the third, fourth, or fifth\n year before our era. The length of Christ\u2019s public ministry was\n fixed by many Church Fathers, in accordance with Isaiah lxi. 1, 2,\n and Luke iv. 19, at one year, and it was consequently assumed\n that Christ was crucified when thirty years of age (Luke iii. 21).\n The synoptists indeed speak only of one passover, the last,\n during Christ\u2019s ministry; but John (ii. 13; vi. 4; xii. 1) speaks\n of three, and also besides (v. 1) of a \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n \u00a7 13.2. Among the non-biblical =witnesses to Christ= the earliest\n is probably a Syrian Epistle of =Mara= to his son Serapion,\n written, according to Cureton (\u201c_Spicileg. Syriacum_.\u201d Lond.,\n 1855), about A.D. 73. The father, highly cultured in Greek wisdom\n but dissatisfied with it, writes from exile words of comfort\n and exhortation to his son, in which he places Christ alongside\n of Socrates and Pythagoras, and honours him as the wise King,\n by whose death the Jews had brought upon themselves the swift\n overthrow of their kingdom, who would, however, although slain,\n live for ever in the new land which He has given. To this period\n also belongs the witness of the Jewish historian =Josephus=,\n which in its probably genuine portions praises Jesus as a worker\n of miracles and teacher of wisdom, and testifies to His death on\n the cross under Pilate, as well as the founding of the church in\n His name. Distinctly and wholly spurious is the =Correspondence\n of Christ with Abgar=, Prince of Edessa, who entreats Christ\n to come to Edessa to heal him and is comforted of the Lord by\n the sending of one of His disciples after His ascension. This\n document was first communicated by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, i. 13)\n from the Archives of Edessa in a literal translation from the\n Syriac, and is also to be found in the Syrian book _Doctrina\n Add\u00e6i_ (\u00a7 32, 6). Of a similar kind are the apocryphal =Acta\n Pilati=, as well the heathen form which has perished (\u00a7 22, 7),\n as the Christian form which is still extant (\u00a7 32, 4). An\n =Epistle of Lentulus,= pretending to be from a Roman resident\n in Palestine on terms of intimacy with Pilate, containing a\n description of the appearance of Christ, is quoted, and even then\n as a forgery, by Laurentius Valla in his writing on the _Donation\n of Constantine_. Since in many particulars it agrees with the\n description of the person of Christ given in the Church History\n by Nicephorus Callisti (\u00a7 5, 1), in accordance with the type then\n prevailing among Byzantine painters, it may fairly be regarded\n as an apocryphal Latin retouching of that description originating\n in the fifteenth century. At Edessa a picture of Christ was known\n to exist in the fourth century (according to the _Doctr. Add\u00e6i_),\n which must have been brought thither by the messengers of Abgar,\n who had picked it up in Jerusalem. During the fourth century\n mention is made of a statue of Christ, first of all by Eusebius,\n who himself had seen it. This was said to have been set up in\n Paneas by the woman cured of the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 20).\n It represents a woman entreating help, kneeling before the lofty\n figure of a man who stretches out his hand to her, while at his\n feet a healing herb springs up. In all probability, however,\n it was simply a votive figure dedicated to the god of healing,\n \u00c6sculapius. The legend that has been current since the fifth\n century of the sweat-marked handkerchief of =Veronica=--this name\n being derived either from _vera icon_, the true likeness, or from\n Bernice or Beronice, the name given in apocryphal legends to the\n woman with the issue of blood,--on which the face of the Redeemer\n which had been wiped by it was imprinted, probably arose through\n the transferring to other incidents the legendary story of Edessa.\n On the occurrence of similar transferences see \u00a7 57, 5.\n\n\n\n\n II. THE APOSTOLIC AGE.\n A.D. 30-70.\n\n\n \u00a7 14. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES BEFORE PAUL.\n\n After the Apostolate had been again by means of the lot raised to the\nsignificant number of twelve, amid miraculous manifestations, the Holy\nSpirit was poured out on the waiting disciples as they were assembled\ntogether on the day of Pentecost, ten days after the Ascension of the\nLord. It was the birthday of the church, and its first members were\nwon by the preaching of Peter to the wondering multitude. By means of\nthe ministry of the Apostles, who at first restricted themselves to\nJerusalem, the church grew daily. A keen persecution, however, on the\npart of the Jews, beginning with the execution of the deacon Stephen,\nscattered them apart, so that the knowledge of the gospel was carried\nthroughout all Palestine, and down into Ph\u0153nicia and Syria. Philip\npreached with peculiarly happy results in Samaria. Peter soon began a\ncourse of visitation through the land of Jews, and at C\u00e6sarea received\ninto the church by baptism the first Gentile family, that of Cornelius,\nhaving been prepared for this beforehand by a vision. At the same time\nthere arose independently at Antioch in Syria a Christian congregation,\ncomposed of Jews and Gentiles, through the great eagerness of the\nGentiles for salvation. The Levite Barnabas, a man of strong faith, was\nsent down from Jerusalem, took upon himself the care of this church, and\nstrengthened his own ministry by securing Paul, the converted Pharisee,\nas his colleague. This great man, some years before, by the appearing of\nChrist to him on the way to Damascus, had been changed from a fanatical\npersecutor into a zealous friend and promoter of the interests of the\nchurch. Thus it came about that the Apostolic mission broke up into\ntwo different sections, one of which was purely Jewish and had for its\ncentre and starting point the mother church at Jerusalem, while the\nother, issuing from Antioch, addressed itself to a mixed audience, and\npreeminently to the Gentiles.\n\n It is difficult to determine with chronological exactness\n either the =beginning= (\u00a7 13, 1) or the =close of the Apostolic\n Age=. Still we cannot be far wrong in taking A.D. 30 as the\n beginning and A.D. 70 as the close of that period. The last\n perfectly certain and uncontested date of the Apostolic Age is\n the martyrdom of the Apostle Paul in A.D. 64, or perhaps A.D. 67,\n see \u00a7 15, 1. We have it on good evidence that James the elder\n died about A.D. 44, and James the Just about A.D. 63 (\u00a7 16, 3),\n that Peter suffered martyrdom contemporaneously with Paul\n (\u00a7 16, 1), that about the same time or not long after the most of\n the other Apostles had been in all probability already taken home,\n at least in regard to their life and work after the days of Paul,\n we have not the slightest information that can lay any claim\n to be regarded as historical. The Apostle John forms the only\n exception to this statement. According to important witnesses\n from the middle and end of the second century (\u00a7 16, 2), he\n entered upon his special field of labour in Asia Minor after\n the death of Paul, and continued to live and labour there, with\n the temporary interruption of an exile in Patmos, down to the\n time of Trajan, A.D. 98-117. But the insufficient data which\n we possess regarding the nature, character, extent, success,\n and consequences of his Apostolic activity there are partly,\n if not in themselves altogether incredible, interesting only\n as anecdotes, and partly wholly fabulous, and therefore little\n fitted to justify us, simply on their account, in assigning the\n end of the first or the beginning of the second century as the\n close of the Apostolic Age. We are thus brought back again to\n the year of Paul\u2019s death as indicating approximately the close of\n that period. But seeing that the precise year of this occurrence\n is matter of discussion, the adoption of the round number 70 may\n be recommended, all the more as with this year, in which the last\n remnant of Jewish national independence was lost, the opposition\n between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, which had prevailed\n throughout the Apostolic Age, makes its appearance under a new\n phase (\u00a7 28).\n\n\n \u00a7 15. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.\n\n Set apart to the work by the church by prayer and laying on of hands,\nPaul and Barnabas started from Antioch on their =first= missionary\njourney to Asia Minor, A.D. 48-50. Notwithstanding much opposition\nand actual persecution on the part of the enraged Jews, he founded\nmixed churches, composed principally of Gentile Christians, comprising\ncongregations at Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. When\nPaul undertook his =second= missionary journey, A.D. 52-55, Barnabas\nseparated himself from him because of his refusal to accept the company\nof his nephew John Mark, who had deserted them during their first\njourney, and along with Mark embarked upon an independent mission,\nbeginning with his native country Cyprus; of the success of this mission\nnothing is known. Paul, on the other hand, accompanied by Silas and\nLuke, with whom at a later period Timothy also was associated, passed\nthrough Asia Minor, and would thereafter have returned to Antioch had\nnot a vision by night at Troas led him to take ship for Europe. There he\nfounded churches at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth,\nand then returned through Asia Minor to Syria. Without any lengthened\ninterval he entered upon his =third= missionary journey, A.D. 55-58,\naccompanied by Luke, Titus, and Timothy. The centre of his ministerial\nactivity during this period was Ephesus, where he founded a church with\na large membership. His success was extraordinary, so that the very\nexistence of heathenism in Asia Minor was seriously imperilled. Driven\naway by the uprising of a heathen mob, he travelled through Macedonia,\npressed on to Illyricum, visited the churches of Greece, and then went\nto Jerusalem, for the performance of a vow. Here his life, threatened\nby the excited Jews, was saved by his being put in prison by the Roman\ncaptain, and then sent down to C\u00e6sarea, A.D. 58. An appeal to C\u00e6sar, to\nwhich as a Roman citizen he was entitled, resulted in his being sent to\nRome, where he, beginning with the spring of A.D. 61, lived and preached\nfor several years, enduring a mild form of imprisonment. The further\ncourse of his life and ministry remains singularly uncertain. Of the\nlater labours and fortunes of Paul\u2019s fellow-workers we know absolutely\nnothing.\n\n It may be accepted as a well authenticated and incontestable\n fact that =Paul= suffered =martyrdom= at Rome under Nero. This\n is established by the testimony of Clement of Rome--\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6,--and is further\n explained and confirmed by Dionysius of Corinth, quoted in\n Eusebius, and by Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Caius of Rome (\u00a7 16, 1). On\n the other hand it is disputed whether it may have happened during\n the imprisonment spoken about in the Acts of the Apostles, or\n during a subsequent imprisonment. According to the tradition of\n the church given currency to by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, ii. 22),\n which even in our own time has been maintained by many capable\n scholars, Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment\n shortly before the outburst of Nero\u2019s persecution of the\n Christians in A.D. 64 (\u00a7 22, 1), and made a fourth missionary\n journey which was brought to a close by his being a second\n time arrested and subsequently beheaded at Rome in A.D. 67. The\n proofs, however, that are offered in support of this assertion\n are of a very doubtful character. Paul certainly in A.D. 58\n had the intention (Rom. xv. 24, 28) after a short visit to Rome\n to proceed to Spain; and when from his prison in Rome he wrote\n to Philemon (v. 22) and to the Philippians (i. 25; ii. 24), he\n believed that his cherished hope of yet regaining his liberty\n would be realised; but there is no further mention of a journey\n into Spain, for apparently other altogether different plans of\n travel are in his mind. And indeed circumstances may easily be\n conceived as arising to blast such hopes and produce in him that\n spirit of hopeless resignation, which he gives expression to\n in 2 Tim. iv. 6 ff. But the words of Clement of Rome, chap. 5:\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03ce\u03bd, etc., are too indefinite and rhetorical to be taken as\n a certain testimony on behalf of a Spanish missionary journey.\n The incomplete reference in the Muratorian Fragment (\u00a7 36, 8)\n to a _profectio Pauli ab Urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis_ may\n be thought to afford more direct testimony, but probably it is\n nothing more than a reminiscence of Rom. xv. 24, 28. Much more\n important, nay almost conclusive, in the opposite direction, is\n the entire absence, not only from all the patristic, but also\n from all the apocryphal, literature of the second and third\n centuries, of any allusion to a fourth missionary journey or a\n second imprisonment of the Apostle. The assertion of Eusebius\n introduced by a vague \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 can scarcely be regarded as\n outweighing this objection. Consequently the majority of modern\n investigators have decided in favour of the theory of one\n imprisonment. But then the important question arises as to\n whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, claiming to be Pauline,\n with the journeys referred to or presupposed in them, and the\n residences of the Apostle and his two assistants, can find\n a place in the framework of the narrative in the Acts of the\n Apostles, and if so, what that place may be. In answering this\n question those investigators take diverse views. Of those who\n cannot surrender their conviction that the Pastoral Epistles\n are genuine, some assign them to the Apostle\u2019s residence of\n almost three years in Ephesus, others to the imprisonment in\n C\u00e6sarea which lasted two years and a half, and others to the\n Roman imprisonment of almost three years. Others again, looking\n upon such expedients as inadmissible, deny the authenticity of\n the Pastoral Epistles, these having appeared to them worthy of\n suspicion on other grounds.\n\n\n \u00a7 16. THE OTHER APOSTLES AFTER THE APPEARANCE\n OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.\n\n Only in reference to the most distinguished of the Apostles have any\ntrustworthy accounts reached us. James the brother of John, at an early\nperiod, in A.D. 44, suffered a martyr\u2019s death at Jerusalem. Peter was\nobliged by this persecution to quit Jerusalem for a time. Inclination\nand his special calling marked him out as the Apostle of the Jews\n(Gal. ii. 7-9). His ministry outside of Palestine was exercised,\naccording to 1 Pet. i. 1, in the countries round about the Black Sea,\nand, according to chap. v. 13, extended to Babylon. The legend that,\ncontemporaneously with the beheading of Paul, he suffered death by\ncrucifixion under Nero at Rome (John xxi. 18, 19), is doubtful; and\nit is also questionable whether he ever went to Rome, while the story\nof his having down to the time of his death been Bishop of Rome for\ntwenty-five years is wholly fabulous. John, according to the tradition\nof the church, took up Asia Minor as his special field of labour after\nit had been deprived of its first Apostle by the martyr death of Paul,\nfixing his residence at Ephesus. At the head of the mother church of\nJerusalem stood James the Just, the brother of the Lord. He seems never\nto have left Jerusalem, and was stoned by the Jews between A.D. 63-69.\nRegarding the rest of the Apostles and their fellow-workers we have only\nlegendary traditions of an extremely untrustworthy description, and even\nthese have come down to us in very imperfect and corrupt forms.\n\n \u00a7 16.1. =The Roman Episcopate of Peter.=--The tradition that\n Peter, after having for some years held the office of bishop\n at Antioch, became first Bishop of Rome, holding the office for\n twenty-five years (A.D. 42-67), and suffered martyrdom at the\n same time with Paul, had its origin in the series of heretical\n apocryphal writings, out of which sprang, both the romance of the\n Clementine Homilies and Recognitions (\u00a7 28, 3), and the Ebionite\n Acts of Peter; but it attained its complete form only at the end\n of the fourth century, after it had been transplanted into the\n soil of the church tradition through the _Acta Petri et Pauli_\n (\u00a7 32, 6). What chiefly secured currency and development to this\n tradition was the endeavour, ever growing in strength in Rome,\n to vindicate on behalf of the Roman Episcopate as the legitimate\n successor and heir to all the prerogatives alleged to have been\n conferred on Peter in Matt. xvi. 18, a title to primacy over all\n the churches (\u00a7 34, 8; 46, 3 ff.). But that Peter had not really\n been in Rome as a preacher of the gospel previous to the year\n A.D. 61, when Paul came to Rome as a prisoner, is evident from the\n absence of any reference to the fact in the Epistle to the Romans,\n written in A.D. 58, as well as in the concluding chapter of the\n Acts of the Apostles. According to the Acts, Peter in A.D. 44\n lay in prison at Jerusalem, and according to Gal. ii., he was\n still there in A.D. 51. Besides, according to the unanimous\n verdict of tradition, as expressed by Iren\u00e6us, Eusebius, Rufinus,\n and the Apostolic Constitutions, not Peter, but Linus, was the\n first Bishop of Rome, and it is only in regard to the order of\n his successors, Anacletus and Clement, that any real uncertainty\n or discrepancy occurs. This, indeed, by no means prevents us\n from admitting an appearance of Peter at Rome resulting in his\n martyrdom. But the testimonies in favour thereof are not of such\n a kind as to render its historical reality unquestionable. That\n Babylon is mentioned in 1 Pet. v. 13 as the place where this\n Epistle was composed, can scarcely be used as a serious argument,\n since the supposition that Babylon is a symbolical designation\n of Rome as the centre of anti-Christian heathenism, though quite\n conceivable and widely current in the early church, is not by any\n means demonstrable. Toward the end of the first century, Clement\n of Rome relates the martyrdom of Peter as well as of Paul, but\n he does not even say that it took place at Rome. On the other\n hand, clear and unmistakable statements are found in Dionysius\n of Corinth, about A.D. 170, then in Caius of Rome, in Iren\u00e6us\n and Tertullian, to the effect that Peter and Paul exercised\n their ministry together and suffered martyrdom together at Rome.\n These statements, however, are interwoven with obviously false\n and fabulous dates to such a degree that their credibility is\n rendered extremely doubtful. Nevertheless they prove this much,\n that already about the end of the second century, the story\n of the two Apostles suffering martyrdom together at Rome was\n believed, and that some, of whom Caius tells us, professed to\n know their graves and to have their bones in their possession.\n\n \u00a7 16.2. =The Apostle John.=--Soon after the death of Paul, the\n Apostle John settled in Ephesus, and there, with the temporary\n break caused by his exile to Patmos (Rev. i. 9), he continued\n to preside over the church of Asia Minor down to his death in\n the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). This rests upon the church\n tradition which, according to Polycrates of Ephesus (Eus., _Hist.\n Eccl._, v. 24) and Iren\u00e6us, a scholar of Polycarp\u2019s (Eus., iv. 14),\n was first set forth during the Easter controversies (\u00a7 37, 2)\n in the middle of the second century by Polycarp of Smyrna, and\n has been accepted as unquestionable through all ages down to our\n own. According to Iren\u00e6us (Eus., iii. 18), his exile occurred\n under Domitian; the Syrian translation of the Apocalypse, which\n was made in the sixth century, assigned it to the time of Nero.\n But seeing that, except in Rev. i. 11, neither in the New\n Testament scriptures, nor in the extant writings and fragments\n of the Church Fathers of the second century before Iren\u00e6us, is\n a residence of the Apostle John at Ephesus asserted or assumed,\n whereas Papias (\u00a7 30, 6), according to Georgius Hamartolus, a\n chronicler of the 9th cent., who had read the now lost work of\n Papias, expressly declares that the Apostle John was slain \u201cby\n Jews\u201d (comp. Matt. xx. 23), which points to Palestine rather\n than to Asia Minor, modern critics have denied the credibility\n of that ecclesiastical tradition, and have attributed its origin\n to a confusion between the Apostle John and a certain John the\n Presbyter, with whom we first meet in the Papias-Fragment quoted\n in Eusebius as \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. Others again, while regarding\n the residence of the Apostle at Ephesus as well established, have\n sought, on account of differences in style standpoint and general\n mode of thought in the Johannine Apocalypse on the one hand, and\n the Johannine Gospel and Epistles on the other hand, to assign\n them to two distinct \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 of the same name, and\n by assigning the Apocalypse to the Presbyter and the Gospel and\n Epistles to the Apostle, they would in this way account for the\n residence at Ephesus. This is the course generally taken by the\n Mediation theologians of Schleiermacher\u2019s school. The advanced\n liberal critics of the school of Baur assign the Apocalypse to\n the Apostle and the Gospel and Epistles to the Presbyter, or else\n instead of the Apostle assume a third John otherwise unknown.\n Conservative orthodox theology again maintains the unity of\n authorship of all the Johannean writings, explains the diversity\n of character discernible in the different works by a change on\n the part of the Apostle from the early Jud\u00e6o-Christian standpoint\n (Gal. ii. 9), which is still maintained in the Apocalypse, to\n the ideal universalistic standpoint assumed in the Gospel and\n the Epistles, and is inclined to identify the Presbyter of Papias\n with the Apostle. Even in Tertullian we meet with the tradition\n that under Nero the Apostle had been thrown into a vat of boiling\n oil, and in Augustine we are told how he emptied a poisoned cup\n without suffering harm. It is a charming story at least that\n Clement of Alexandria tells of the faithful pastoral care which\n the aged Apostle took in a youth who had fallen so far as to\n become a bandit chief. Of such a kind, too, is the story told of\n the Apostle by Jerome, how in the extreme weakness of old age he\n had to be carried into the assemblies of the congregation, and\n with feeble accents could only whisper, Little children, love one\n another. According to Iren\u00e6us, when by accident he met with the\n heretic Cerinthus (\u00a7 27, 1) in the bath, he immediately rushed\n out to avoid any contact with him.\n\n \u00a7 16.3. =James, the brother of the Lord.=--The name of James was\n borne by two of the twelve disciples of Jesus: James, the son of\n Zebedee and brother of John, who was put to death by the command\n of Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) about A.D. 44, and James,\n son of Alph\u00e6us, about whom we have no further information. A\n third James, designated in Gal. i. 19 the brother of the Lord,\n who according to Hegesippus (Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, ii. 23) on\n account of his scrupulous fulfilment of the law received the\n title of the Just, is met with in Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 18,\n and is recognised by Paul (Gal. i. 19; ii. 9-12) as the President\n of the church in Jerusalem. According to Hegesippus (\u00a7 31, 7),\n he was from his childhood a Nazirite, and shortly before the\n destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews at the Passover having desired\n of him a testimony against Christ, and he having instead given\n a powerful testimony on His behalf, he was hurled down from a\n pinnacle of the temple, stoned, and at last, while praying for\n his enemies, slain by the blows of a fuller\u2019s club. According\n to Josephus, however, Ananus, the high priest, after the recall\n of the Proconsul Festus and before the arrival of his successor\n Albinus, along with other men hostile to James, hastily condemned\n him and had him stoned, about A.D. 63. In regard to the person of\n this last-named James three different theories have been proposed.\n\n a. In the ancient church, the brothers of Jesus, of whom besides\n James other three, Joses, Simon, and Judas, are named, were\n regarded undoubtedly as step-brothers of Jesus, sons of\n Joseph and Mary (Matt. i. 25), and even Tertullian argues\n from the existence of brothers of the Redeemer according to\n the flesh against the Docetism of the Gnostics.\n\n b. Soon, however, it came to be felt that the idea that Joseph\n had conjugal intercourse with Mary after the birth of Jesus\n was in conflict with the ascetic tendency now rising into\n favour, and so to help themselves out of this embarrassment,\n it was assumed that the brothers of Jesus were sons of\n Joseph by a former wife.\n\n c. The want of biblical foundation for this view was the\n occasion of its being abandoned in favour of a theory,\n first hinted at by Jerome, according to which the expression\n brothers of Jesus is to be taken in a wider sense as meaning\n cousins, and in this way James the brother of the Lord was\n identified with James the son of Alph\u00e6us, one of the twelve\n disciples, and the four or five Jameses named in the New\n Testament were reduced to two, James the son of Zebedee\n and James son of Alph\u00e6us. It was specially urged from\n John xix. 25 that James the son of Alph\u00e6us was the sister\u2019s\n son of Jesus\u2019 mother. This was done by a purely arbitrary\n identification of the name Clopas or Cleophas with the\n Alph\u00e6us of the Synoptists, the rendering of the words \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u1fb6 by the wife of Clopas, and also the assumption,\n which is scarcely conceivable, that the sister of the mother\n of Jesus was also called Mary. We should therefore in this\n passage regard the sister of the mother of Jesus and Mary\n wife of Clopas as two distinct persons. In that case the\n wife of Alph\u00e6us may have been called Mary and have had two\n sons who, like two of the four brothers of Jesus, were named\n James and Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiv. 10);\n but even then, in the James here mentioned, we should meet\n with another James otherwise unknown, different from the\n James son of Alph\u00e6us in the list of the Apostles, whose name\n occurs in Luke xv. 16 and Acts i. 13 in the phrase Judas of\n James, where the genitive undoubtedly means brother of James\n son of Alph\u00e6us. And though in Gal. i. 19, James the brother\n of the Lord seems to be called an Apostle, when this is\n compared with Acts xiv. 14, it affords no proof that he\n belonged to the number of the twelve.\n\n But the fact that the brothers of Jesus are all and always\n expressly distinguished from His twelve Apostles, and form a\n group outwardly and inwardly apart from them (Matt. xii. 46;\n Mark iii. 31; Luke viii. 19; John ii. 12), tells decidedly against\n that idea. In John vii. 3, 5, they are, at a time when James\n son of Alph\u00e6us and Judas brother of James were already in the\n Apostolate, described as unbelieving, and only subsequently to\n the departure of the Lord, who after His resurrection appeared\n to James (1 Cor. xv. 7), do we meet them, though even then\n distinguished from the twelve, standing in the closest fellowship\n with the Christian believing community (Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5).\n Besides, in accordance with Matt. xxviii. 19, none of the twelve\n could assume the permanent presidency of the mother church, and\n Hegesippus not only knows of \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f38\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9, and so surely of\n more than two, but makes James enter upon his office in Jerusalem\n first \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n \u00a7 16.4. =The Later Legends of the Apostles.=--The tradition that\n after the Lord\u2019s ascension His disciples, their number having\n been again made up to twelve (Acts i. 13), in fulfilment of\n their Lord\u2019s command (Matt. xxviii. 18), had a special region\n for missionary labour assigned by lot to each, and also the other\n tradition, according to which, before their final departure from\n Jerusalem, after a stay there for seven or twelve years, they\n drew up by common agreement rules for worship, discipline and\n constitution suited to the requirements of universal Christendom,\n took shape about the middle of the second century, and gave\n occasion to the origin of many apocryphal histories of the\n Apostles (\u00a7 32, 5, 6), as well as apocryphal books of church\n order (\u00a7 43, 4, 5). Whether any portion at all, and if so, how\n much, of the various contradictory statements of the apocryphal\n histories and legends of the Apostles about their mission\n fields and several fortunes can be regarded as genuine tradition\n descending from the Apostolic Age, must be left undecided. In any\n case, the legendary drapery and embellishment of casual genuine\n reminiscences are in the highest degree fantastic and fabulous.\n Ancient at least, according to Eusebius, are the traditions\n of Thomas having preached in Parthia, Andrew in Scythia, and\n Bartholomew in India; while in later traditions Thomas figures\n as the Apostle of India (\u00a7 32, 5). The statement by Eusebius,\n supported from many ancient authorities, that the Apostle Philip\n exercised his ministry from Hierapolis in Phrygia to Asia Minor,\n originated perhaps from the confounding of the Apostle with the\n Evangelist of the same name (Acts xxi. 8, 9). A history of the\n Apostle Barnabas, attributed to John Mark, but in reality dating\n only from the fifth century, attaching itself to Acts xv. 39,\n tells how he conducted his mission and suffered martyrdom in his\n native country of Cyprus; while another set of legends, probably\n belonging to the same period, makes him the founder of the church\n of Milan. John Mark, sister\u2019s son of Barnabas, who appears in\n Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11; and Philem. 24, as the fellow-labourer\n of the Apostle Paul, in 1 Pet. v. 13 as companion of Peter at\n Babylon, and, according to Papias, wrote his gospel at Rome as\n the amanuensis of Peter, is honoured, according to another very\n widely received tradition, quoted by Eusebius from a Chronicle\n belonging to the end of the second century, from which also\n Julius Africanus drew information, as the founder and first\n bishop of the church of Alexandria, etc., etc.\n\n\n \u00a7 17. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, AND DISCIPLINE.[6]\n\n Bound under Christ its one head into an articulated whole, the church\nought by the co-operation of all its members conditioned and determined\nby position, talent, and calling, to build itself up and grow (1 Cor.\nxii. 12 ff.; Eph. i. 22 f.). Development will thus be secured to natural\ntalent and the spiritual calling through the bestowment of special gifts\nof grace or charismata. The first form of Christian church fellowship,\nin the Jewish as well as the Gentile Christian churches, was of a\nthoroughly free character; modelled upon, and attached to, forms of\norganization already existing and legitimized, or, at least, tolerated\nby the state, but all the while inspired and leavened by a free\nChristian spirit. Compelled by the necessity which is felt in all social\nfederations for the recognised ranking of superiority, inferiority, and\nequality, in which his own proper sphere and task would be assigned to\neach member, and encroachment and disorderliness prevented, a collegial\nchurch council was soon formed by a free compact, the members of which,\nall possessed of equal rights, were called \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 in consideration\nof their personal character, and \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 in consideration of their\nofficial duties. Upon them devolved especially attention and care in\nregard to all outward things that might affect the common interests\nof the church, management of the property which had to be realised\nand spent on the religious services, and of the means required for the\nsupport of the poor, as well as the administration of justice and of\ndiscipline. But alongside of these were other more independent offices,\nthe holders of which did not go forth like the members of the eldership\nas the choice of the churches, but rather had the spiritual edification\nof the church assigned them as their life work by a special divine\ncall and a charismatic endowment of the gift of teaching. To this class\nbelong, besides Apostles and helpers of the Apostles, Prophets, Pastors,\nand Teachers.\n\n \u00a7 17.1. =The Charismata= of the Apostolic Age are presented to us\n in 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff. as signs (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, v. 7) of the presence\n of the Spirit of God working in the church, which, attaching\n themselves to natural endowment and implying a free personal\n surrender to their influence, and manifesting themselves in\n various degrees of intensity from the natural to the supernatural,\n qualified certain members of the church with the powers necessary\n and desirable for the upbuilding and extension of the Christian\n community. In verses 8-11, the Charismata are arranged in three\n classes by means of the twice-repeated \u1f11\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9.\n\n 1. Gifts of Teaching, embracing the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 and the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n 2. Completeness of Faith, or \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 with the possession of\n supernatural powers for healing the sick, working miracles,\n and prophesying, and alongside of the latter, for sifting\n and proving it, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 3. Ecstatic speaking with tongues, \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, alongside of which is placed the interpretation of\n tongues necessary for the understanding thereof \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\n \u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\n In addition to these three are mentioned, in verse 28, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n care of the poor, the sick and strangers, and \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, church\n government. The essential distinction between speaking with\n tongues and prophesying consists, according to 1 Cor. xiv. 1-18,\n in this, that whereas the latter is represented as an inspiration\n by the Spirit of God, acting upon the consciousness, the \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 of\n the prophet, and therefore requiring no further explanation to\n render it applicable for the edification of the congregation,\n the former is represented as an ecstatic utterance, wholly\n uncontrolled by the \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 of the human instrument, yet employing\n the human organs of speech, \u03b3\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, which leaves the assembled\n congregation out of view and addresses itself directly to God,\n so that in ver. 13-15 it is called a \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, being made\n intelligible to the audience only by means of the charismatic\n interpretation of men immediately acted upon for the purpose by\n the Spirit of God. In Rom. xii. 6-8, although there the charisms\n are enumerated in even greater details, so as to include even\n the showing of mercy with cheerfulness, the \u03b3\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is\n wanting. It would thus seem that this sort of spiritual display,\n if not exclusively (Acts ii. 4; x. 46; xix. 6; Mark xvi. 17), yet\n with peculiar fondness, which was by no means commended by the\n Apostle, was fostered in the church of Corinth. The thoroughly\n unique speaking with tongues which took place on the first\n Pentecost (Acts ii. 6, 11) is certainly not to be understood\n as implying that the Apostles had been either temporarily\n or permanently qualified to speak in the several languages\n and dialects of those present from all the countries of the\n dispersion. It probably means simply that the power was conferred\n upon the speakers of speaking with tongues and that at the same\n time an analogous endowment of the interpretation of tongues\n was conferred upon those who heard (Comp., Acts ii. 12, 15, with\n 1 Cor. xiv. 22 f. ).\n\n \u00a7 17.2. =The Constitution of the Mother Church at\n Jerusalem.=--The notion which gained currency through Vitringa\u2019s\n learned work \u201c_De synagoga vetere_,\u201d publ. 1696, that the\n constitution of the Apostolic church was moulded upon the pattern\n of the synagogues, is now no longer seriously entertained. Not\n only in regard to the Pauline churches wholly or chiefly composed\n of Gentile Christians, but also in regard to the Palestinian\n churches of purely Jewish Christians, no evidence in support\n of such a theory can be found. There is no sort of analogy\n between any office bearers in the church and the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\n who were essentially characteristic of all the synagogues\n both in Palestine and among the dispersion (Mark v. 22;\n Luke viii. 41, 49; Acts xiii. 15; xviii. 8, 17), nor do we find\n anything to correspond to the \u1f51\u03c0\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 or inferior officers of\n the synagogue (Luke iv. 20). On the other hand, the office bearers\n of the Christian churches, who, consisting, according to Acts vi.,\n of deacons, and also afterwards, according to Acts xi. 30, of\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, or elders of the church at Jerusalem, occupied a\n place alongside of the Apostles in the government of the church,\n are without any analogy in the synagogues. The Jewish \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6 mentioned in Matt. xxi. 23; xxvi. 3; Acts iv. 5; xxii. 5,\n etc., did not exercise a ministry of teaching and edification in\n the numerous synagogues of Jerusalem, but a legislatory, judicial\n and civil authority over the whole Jewish commonwealth as members\n of the Sanhedrim, of chief priest, scribes and elders. Between\n even these, however, and the elders of the Christian church a\n far-reaching difference exists. The Jewish elders are indeed\n representatives of the people, and have as such a seat and vote\n in the supreme council, but no voice is allowed to the people\n themselves. In the council of the Christian church, on the other\n hand, with reference to all important questions, the membership\n of all believers is called together for consultation and\n deliverance (Acts vi. 2-6; xv. 4, 22). A complaint on the part\n of the Hellenistic members of the church that their poor were\n being neglected led to the election of seven men who should care\n for the poor, not by the Apostles, but by the church. This is\n commonly but erroneously regarded as the first institution of\n the deaconship. To those then chosen, for whom the Acts (xxi. 8)\n has no other designation than that of \u201cthe seven,\u201d the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 is certainly assigned: but they were not and were not\n called Deacons in the official sense any more than the Apostles,\n who still continued, according to v. 4, to exercise the \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5. When the bitter persecution that followed the stoning\n of Stephen had scattered the church abroad over the neighbouring\n countries, they also departed at the same time from Jerusalem\n (Acts viii. 1), and Philip, who was now the most notable of their\n number, officiated henceforth only as an evangelist, that is, as\n an itinerant preacher of the gospel, in the region about his own\n house in C\u00e6sarea (Acts viii. 5; xxi. 8; comp. Eph. iv. 11; 2 Tim.\n iv. 5). Upon the reorganization of the church at Jerusalem, the\n Apostles beginning more clearly to appreciate their own special\n calling (Matt. xxviii. 19), gave themselves more and more to the\n preaching of the gospel even outside of Jerusalem, and thus the\n need became urgent of an authoritative court for the conducting\n of the affairs of the church even during their absence. In these\n circumstances it would seem, according to Acts xi. 30, that those\n who ministered to the poor, chosen probably from among the most\n honourable of the first believers (Acts ii. 41), passed over into\n a self-constituted college of presbyters. At the head of this\n college or board stood James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. i. 19;\n ii. 9; Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 15), and after his death,\n according to Hegesippus, a near relation of the Lord, Simeon,\n son of Clopas, as a descendant of David, was unanimously chosen\n as his successor. The episcopal title, however, just like that of\n Deacon, is first met with in the New Testament in the region of\n the Pauline missions, and in the terminology of the Palestinian\n churches we only hear of presbyters as officers of the church\n (Acts xv. 4, 6, 22; xxi. 18; James v. 14). In 1 Peter v. 2,\n however, although \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 does not yet appear as an official\n title, the official duty of the \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd is assigned to\n presbyters (see \u00a7 17, 6). It is Hegesippus, about A.D. 180, who\n first gives the title Bishop of Jerusalem to James, after the\n Clementines (\u00a7 28, 3) had already ten years previously designated\n him \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n \u00a7 17.3. =The Constitution of the Pauline Churches.= Founding upon\n the works of Mommsen and Foucart, first of all Heinrici and soon\n afterwards the English theologian Hatch[7] has wrought out the\n theory that the constitution of the churches that were wholly\n or mainly composed of Gentile Christians was modelled on those\n convenient, open or elastic rules of associations under which\n the various Hellenistic guilds prospered so well (\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9,\n \u1f14\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9),--associations for the naturalization and fostering of\n foreign, often oriental, modes of worship. In the same way, too,\n the Christian church at Rome, for social and sacred purposes,\n made use of the forms of association employed in the Collegia or\n Sodalicia, which were found there in large numbers, especially\n of the funeral societies in which both of those purposes were\n combined (_collegia funeraticia_). In both these cases, then,\n the church, by attaching itself to modes of association already\n existing, acknowledged by the state, or tolerated as harmless,\n assumed a form of existence which protected it from the suspicion\n of the government, and at the same time afforded it space and\n time for independent construction in accordance with its own\n special character and spirit. As in those Hellenic associations\n all ranks, even those which in civil society were separated from\n one another by impassable barriers, found admission, and then,\n in the framing of statutes, the reception of fellow members, the\n exercise of discipline, possessed equal rights; as, further, the\n full knowledge of their mysteries and sharing in their exercise\n were open only to the initiated (\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03c5\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), yet in the exercise\n of exoteric worship the doors were hospitably flung open even to\n the \u1f00\u03bc\u03c5\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9; as upon certain days those belonging to the narrow\n circle joining together in partaking of a common feast; so too\n all this is found in the Corinthian church, naturally inspired\n by a Christian spirit and enriched with Christian contents. The\n church also has its religious common feast in its Agape, its\n mystery in the Eucharist, its initiation in baptism, by the\n administration of which the divine service is divided into two\n parts, one esoteric, to be engaged in only by the baptized,\n the other exoteric, a service that is open to those who are\n not Christians. All ranks (Gal. iii. 28) have the same claim\n to admission to baptism, all the baptized have equal rights in\n the congregation (see \u00a7 17, 7). It is evident, however, that\n the connection between the Christian churches and those heathen\n associations is not so to be conceived as if, because in the one\n case distinctions of rank were abolished, so also they were in\n the other; or that, because in the one case religious festivals\n were observed, this gave the first hint as to the observance of\n the Christian Agape; or that, because and in the manner in which\n there a mysterious service was celebrated from which all outside\n were strictly excluded, so also here was introduced an exclusive\n eucharistic service. These observances are rather to be regarded\n as having grown up independently out of the inmost being of\n Christianity; but the church having found certain institutions\n existing inspired by a wholly different spirit, yet outwardly\n analogous and sanctioned by the state, it appropriated, as far\n as practicable, their forms of social organization, in order to\n secure for itself the advantages of civil protection. That even\n on the part of the pagans, down into the last half of the second\n century, the Christian congregational fellowship was regarded as\n a special kind of the mystery-communities, is shown by Lucian\u2019s\n satire, _De morte Peregrini_ (\u00a7 23, 1), where the description\n of Christian communities, in which its hero for a time played\n a part, is full of technical terms which were current in\n those associations. \u201cIt is also,\u201d says Weingarten, \u201cexpressly\n acknowledged in Tertullian\u2019s _Apologeticus_, c. 38, 39, written\n about A.D. 198, that even down to the close of the second century,\n the Christian church was organized in accordance with the rules\n of the _Collegia funeraticia_, so that it might claim from the\n state the privileges of the _Factiones licit\u00e6_. The arrangements\n for burial and the Christian institutions connected therewith are\n shown to have been carefully subsumed under forms that were\n admitted to be legal.\u201d\n\n \u00a7 17.4. Confining ourselves meantime to the oldest and\n indisputably authentic epistles of the Apostle, we find that\n the autonomy of the church in respect of organization, government,\n discipline, and internal administration is made prominent as\n the very basis of the constitution. He never interferes in those\n matters, enjoining and prescribing by his own authority, but\n always, whether personally or in spirit, only as associated with\n their assemblies (1 Cor. v. 3), deliberating and deciding in\n common with them. Thus his Apostolic importance shows itself not\n in his assuming the attitude of a lord (2 Cor. i. 24), but that\n of a father (1 Cor. iv. 14 f.), who seeks to lead his children\n on to form for themselves independent and manly judgments (1 Cor.\n x. 15; xi. 13). Regular and fixed church officers do not seem to\n have existed in Corinth down to the time when the first Epistle\n was written, about A.D. 57. A diversity of functions (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, 1 Cor. xii. 4) is here, indeed, already found, but\n not yet definitely attached to distinct and regular offices\n (1 Cor. vi. 1-6). It is always yet a voluntary undertaking of such\n ministries on the one hand, and the recognition of peculiar piety\n and faithfulness, leading to willing submission on the other hand,\n out of which the idea of office took its rise, and from which\n it obtained its special character. This is especially true of\n a peculiar kind of ministry (Rom. xvi. 1, 2) which must soon\n have been developed as something indispensable to the Christian\n churches throughout the Hellenic and Roman regions. We mean\n the part played by the patron, which was so deeply grounded in\n the social life of classical antiquity. Freedmen, foreigners,\n proletarii, could not in themselves hold property and had no\n claim on the protection of the laws, but had to be associated\n as _Clientes_ with a _Patronus_ or _Patrona_ (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) who in difficult circumstances would afford them\n counsel, protection, support, and defence. As in the Greek and\n Roman associations for worship this relationship had long before\n taken root, and was one of the things that contributed most\n materially to their prosperity, so also in the Christian churches\n the need for recognising and giving effect to it became all the\n more urgent in proportion as the number of members increasing\n for whom such support was necessary (1 Cor. i. 26-29). Ph\u0153be\n is warmly recommended in Rom. xvi. 1, 2, as such a Christian\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, at Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, among whose numerous\n clients the Apostle himself is mentioned. Many inscriptions in\n the Roman catacombs testify to the deep impress which this social\n scheme made upon the organization, especially of the Roman church,\n down to the end of the first century, and to the help which it\n gave in rendering that church permanent. All the more are we\n justified in connecting therewith the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u1fc7\n (Rom. xii. 8), and in giving this passage in connection with the\n preceding and succeeding context the meaning: whoever represents\n any one as patron let him do it with diligence.--The gradual\n development of stated or independent =congregational offices=,\n after privileges and duties were distinguished from one another,\n was thus brought about partly by the natural course of events,\n and partly by the endeavour to make the church organization\n correspond with the Greek and Roman religious associations\n countenanced by the state by the employment in it of the same\n or similar forms and names. In the older communities, especially\n those in capital cities, like Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, etc.,\n the heads of the families of the first believers attained an\n authoritative position altogether unique, as at Corinth those of\n the household of Stephanas, who, according to 1 Cor. xvi. 15, as\n the \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u0390\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n Such honour, too, was given to the most serviceable of the\n chosen patrons and others, who evidently possessed the gifts of\n \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, and those who first in an informal\n way had discharged official duties had amends made them even\n after death by a formal election. On the other hand, the\n churches that sprang up at a later period were probably provided\n immediately with such offices under the direction and with the\n consent of the Apostle or his apostolic assistants (1 Tim. v. 9;\n Tit. i. 5).\n\n \u00a7 17.5. =Congregational and Spiritual Offices.=--While then, down\n to A.D. 57 no ecclesiastical offices properly so called as yet\n existed at Corinth, and no injunctions are given by the Apostle\n for their definite introduction, it is told us in Acts xiv. 23\n that, so early as A.D. 50, when Paul was returning from his first\n missionary journey he ordained with prayer and fasting elders\n or presbyters in those churches of Asia Minor previously founded\n by him. Now it is indeed quite conceivable that in these cases\n he adhered more closely to the already existing presbyterial\n constitution of the mother church at Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30),\n than he did subsequently in founding and giving a constitution\n to the churches of the European cities where perhaps the\n circumstances and requirements were entirely different. But\n be this as it may, it is quite certain that the Apostle on his\n departure from lately formed churches took care to leave them\n in an organized condition, and the author of the Acts has given\n expression to the fact proleptically in terms with which he was\n himself conversant and which were current in his time.--Among the\n Pauline epistles which are scarcely, if at all, objected to by\n modern criticism the first to give certain information regarding\n distinct and independent congregational offices, together\n with the names that had been then assigned to these offices,\n is the Epistle to the Philippians, written during the Roman\n imprisonment of the Apostle. In chap. i. 1, he sends his apostolic\n greeting and blessing \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.[8] The =Episcopate= and the\n =Diaconate= make their appearance here as the two categories\n of congregational offices, of both of which there are several\n representatives in each congregation. It is in the so-called\n Pastoral Epistles that for the first time we find applied in\n the Gentile Christian communities the title of =Presbyter= which\n had been the usual designation of the president in the mother\n church at Jerusalem. This title, just as in Acts xx. 17, 28, is\n undoubtedly regarded as identical with that of bishop (\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2)\n and is used as an alternative (Tit. i. 5, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 1; iv. 14;\n v. 17, 19). From the practical identity of the qualifications\n of bishops (1 Tim. iii. 1) or of deacons (_v._ 12 f.), it follows\n that their callings were essentially the same; and from the\n etymological signification of their names, it would seem\n that there was assigned to the bishops the duty of governing,\n administrating and superintending, to the deacons that of serving,\n assisting and carrying out details as subordinate auxiliaries. It\n is shown by Rom. xvi. 1, that even so early as A.D. 58, the need\n of a female order of helpers had been felt and was supplied. When\n this order had at a later period assumed the rank of a regular\n office, it became the rule that only widows above sixty years\n of age should be chosen (1 Tim. v. 9).--We are introduced to\n an altogether different order of ecclesiastical authorities in\n Eph. iv. 11, where we have named in the first rank =Apostles=,\n in the second =Prophets=, in the third =Evangelists=, and in the\n fourth =Pastors= and =Teachers=. What is here meant by Apostles\n and Prophets is quite evident (\u00a7 34, 1). From 2 Tim. iv. 5 and\n Acts xxi. 8 (viii. 5), it follows that Evangelists are itinerant\n preachers of the gospel and assistants of the Apostles. It is\n more difficult to determine exactly the functions of Pastors and\n Teachers and their relation to the regular congregational offices.\n Their introduction in Eph. iv. 11, as together constituting a\n fourth class, as well as the absence of the term Pastor in the\n parallel passage, 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29, presupposes such a close\n connection of the two orders, the one having the care of souls,\n the other the duties of preaching and catechizing, that we\n unhesitatingly assume that both were, if not always, at least\n generally, united in the same person. They have been usually\n identified with the bishops or presbyters. In Acts xx. 17, 28,\n and in 1 Pet. v. 2-4, presbyters are expressly called pastors.\n The order of the \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 in Heb. xiii. 7, \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, has also been regarded as identical with that\n of bishops. In regard to the last named order a confusion already\n appears in Acts xv., where men, who in _v._ 22 are expressly\n distinguished from the elders (presbyters) and in _v._ 32 are\n ranked as prophets, are yet called \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. We should also\n be led to conclude from 1 Cor. xii. 28, that those who had\n the qualifications of \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, functions\n certainly belonging to bishops or presbyters as administrative\n and diocesan officers, are yet personally distinguished from\n Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers. Now it is explicitly enjoined\n in Tit. i. 9 that in the choice of bishops special care should be\n taken to see that they have capacity for teaching. In 1 Tim. v. 17\n double honour is demanded for the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9,\n if they also labour \u1f10\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3. This passage, however,\n shows teaching did not always and in all circumstances, or even\n _ex professo_ belong to the special functions of the president\n of the congregation; that it was rather in special circumstances,\n where perhaps these gifts were not at all or not in sufficient\n abundance elsewhere to be found, that these duties of teaching\n were undertaken in addition to their own proper official work of\n presidency (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9). The dividing line between the two orders,\n bishops and deacons on the one hand, and pastors and teachers\n on the other, consists in the fundamentally different nature of\n their calling. The former were congregational offices, the latter,\n like those of Apostles and Prophets, were spiritual offices. The\n former were chosen by the congregation, the latter had, like the\n Apostles and Prophets, a divine call, though according to James\n iii. 1 not without the consenting will of the individual, and\n the charismatic capacity for teaching, although not in the\n same absolute measure. The former were attached to a particular\n congregation, the latter were, like the Apostles and Prophets,\n first of all itinerant teachers and had, like them, the task of\n building up the churches (Eph. iv. 12, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6). But, while the Apostles and Prophets laid the\n foundation of this building on Christ, the chief corner stone,\n preachers and teachers had to continue building on the foundation\n thus laid (Eph. ii. 20). A place and importance are undoubtedly\n secured for these three spiritual offices, in so far as continued\n itinerant offices, by the example of the Lord in His preliminary\n sending forth of the twelve in Matt. x., and of the seventy\n disciples in Luke x.--Continuation, \u00a7 34, 1.\n\n \u00a7 17.6. =The question about the original position of the\n Episcopate and Presbyterate=, as well as their relation to one\n another, has received three different answers. According to\n the =Roman Catholic= theory, which is also that of the Anglican\n Episcopal Church, the clerical, hierarchical arrangement of the\n third century, which gave to each of the larger communities a\n bishop as its president with a number of presbyters and deacons\n subject to him, existed as a divine institution from the\n beginning. It is unequivocally testified by the New Testament,\n and, as appears from the First Epistle of Clement of Rome (ch. 42,\n 44, 57), the fact had never been disputed down to the close of\n the first century, that bishops and presbyters are identical.\n The force of this objection, however, is sought to be obviated by\n the subterfuge that while all bishops were indeed presbyters, all\n presbyters were not bishops. The ineptitude of such an evasion\n is apparent. In Phil. i. 1 the Apostle, referring to this one\n particular church greeted not one but several bishops. According\n to Acts xx. 17, 28, all the presbyters of the one Ephesian\n community are made bishops by the Holy Ghost. Also, Tit. i. 5, 7\n unconditionally excludes such a distinction; and according to\n 1 Pet. v. 2, all such presbyters should be \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.--In\n opposition to this theory, which received the sanction of the\n Council of Trent, the =Old Protestant= theologians maintained the\n original identity of the two names and offices. In support of\n this they could refer not only to the New Testament, but also to\n Clement of Rome and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (\u00a7 34, 1),\n where, just as in Phil. i. 1, only bishops and deacons are named\n as congregational officers, and as appointed by the free choice\n of the congregation. They can also point to the consensus of the\n most respected church fathers and church teachers of later times.\n Chrysostom (Hom. ix. in _Ep. ad Tim._) says: \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9. Jerome (_ad Tit._ i. 5) says: _Idem\n est presbyter qui et episcopus et antequam diaboli instinctu\n studia in religione fierent ... communi presbyterorum concilio\n gubernantur ecclesi\u00e6._ Augustine, and other church fathers of the\n fourth and fifth centuries, as well as Urban II. in A.D. 1091,\n Petrus [Peter] Lombardus and the Decree of Gratian, may all\n be referred to as supporting the same view. After such an\n identification of the person and office, the existence of the two\n names must be explained from their meaning as words, by assuming\n that the title \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, which arose among the Gentile-Christian\n churches, pointed more to the duty officially required, while\n the title \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, which arose among the Jewish-Christian\n churches, pointed more to the honourable character of the person\n (1 Tim. v. 17, 19). The subsequent development of a monarchical\n episcopacy is quite conceivable as having taken place in the\n natural course of events (\u00a7 34, 2).--A third theory is that\n proposed by =Hatch=, of Oxford, in A.D. 1881, warmly approved of\n and vigorously carried out by =Harnack=. According to this theory\n the two names in question answer to a twofold distinction that\n appears in the church courts: on the college of presbyters was\n devolved the government of the community, with administration\n of law and discipline; on the bishops and their assistants the\n superintendence and management of the community in the widest\n sense of the word, including its worship, and first of all and\n chiefly the brotherly care of the poor, the sick and strangers,\n together with the collecting, keeping, and dispensing of\n money needful for those ends. In the course of time the two\n organizations were combined into one, since the bishops, on\n account of their eminently important place and work, obtained\n in the presbytery not only a simple seat and vote, but by-and-by\n the presidency and the casting vote. In establishing this theory\n it is pointed out that in the government and management of\n federations of that time for social and religious purposes\n in country districts or in cities, in imitation of which the\n organization of the Christian communities was formed, this\n twofold distribution is also found, and that especially the\n administrators of the finances in these societies had not only\n the title of \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, but had also the president\u2019s seat in\n their assemblies (\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae), which, however, is not\n altogether conclusive, since it is demonstrable that this title\n was also borne by judicial and political officials. It is also\n pointed out on the other hand that, in accordance with the\n modified view presented in the Pastoral Epistles, the Acts,\n and the Epistle of Clement of Rome, the consciousness of the\n original diversity of calling of the two offices were maintained\n throughout the whole of the second century, inasmuch as often a\n theoretical distinction between bishops and presbyters in the way\n specified was asserted. Now, in the first place, it can scarcely\n be matter of dispute as to whether the administration of property,\n with the care of the poor (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2) as the principal task,\n could actually have won a place so superior in respectability,\n influence and significance to that of congregational government\n (\u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2), or whether the authority which embraced the\n functions of a judicial bench, a court of discipline, and a court\n of equity did not rather come to preponderate over that which was\n occupied in the administration of property and the care of the\n poor. But above all we shall have to examine the New Testament\n writings, as the relatively oldest witnesses to the matter of\n fact as well as to the usage of the language, and see what they\n have to say on the subject. This must be done even by those who\n would have the composition of the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts\n removed out of the Apostolic Age. In these writings, however,\n there is nowhere a firm and sure foundation afforded to that\n theory. It has, indeed, been supposed that in Phil. i. 1 mention\n is made only of bishops and deacons because by them the present\n from the Philippians had been brought to the Apostle. But seeing\n that, in the case of there actually existing in Philippi at this\n time besides the bishops a college of presbyters, the omission\n of these from the greeting in this epistle, the chief purpose\n of which was to impart apostolic comfort and encouragement, and\n which only refers gratefully at the close, ch. iv. 10, to the\n contribution sent, would have been damaging to them, we must\n assume that the bishops with their assistants the deacons were\n the only office-bearers then existing in that community. Thus\n this passage tells as much against as in favour of the limiting\n of the episcopal office to economical administration. Often\n as mention is made in the New Testament of an \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and\n a \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd in and over the community, this never stands in\n specific and exclusive relation to administration of property and\n care of the poor. It is indeed assumed in Acts xi. 30 that care\n of the poor is a duty of the presbyter; so also the charismatic\n caring for the sick is required of presbyters in James v. 14;\n and in 1 Pet. v. 2 presbyters are described as \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2;\n in 1 Pet. ii. 25 Christ is spoken of as \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd;\n in Acts i. 20 the apostolic office is called \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, while in\n Acts i. 25 and often, especially in the Pauline epistles, it is\n designated a \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1.[9]--Continuation, \u00a7 34, 2.\n\n \u00a7 17.7. =Christian Worship.=--Even in Jerusalem, where the\n temple ordinances were still observed, the religious needs of\n the Christian community demanded that separate services of a\n distinctly Christian character should be organized. But just\n as the Jewish services of that day consisted of two parts--the\n ministry of the word for purposes of instruction and edification\n in the synagogues, and the symbolic service of a typical and\n sacramental character in the temple,--the Christian service was\n in like manner from the first divided into a homiletical-didactic\n part, and a eucharistic-sacramental part.--=The Homiletical and\n Didactic part=, on account of the presence of those who were\n not Christians, must have had, just like the synagogue service,\n alongside of its principal aim to instruct and edify the\n congregation, a definite and deliberately planned missionary\n tendency. The church in Jerusalem at the first held these\n _morning_ services in one of the halls of the temple, where the\n people were wont to assemble for prayer (Acts ii. 46; iii. 1, 11);\n but at a later period they were held in private houses. In the\n Gentile churches they seem from the first to have been held in\n private houses or in halls rented for the purpose. The service\n consisted in reading of portions of the Old Testament, and at a\n later period, portions of the Apostolic Epistles and Gospels, and\n in connection therewith, doctrinal and hortatory discourses, with\n prayer and singing of psalms. It is more than probable that the\n liberty of teaching, which had prevailed in the synagogues (Luke\n ii. 46; iv. 16; Acts xiii. 15), was also permitted in the similar\n assemblies of Jewish Christians (Acts viii. 4; xi. 19; James\n iii. 1); and it may be concluded from 1 Cor. xiv. 34 that this\n also was the practice in Gentile-Christian congregations. The\n apparent contradiction of women as such being forbidden to\n speak, while in 1 Cor. xi. 5 it seems to be allowed, can only be\n explained by supposing that in the passage referred to the woman\n spoken of as praying or prophesying is praying in an ecstasy,\n that is, speaking with tongues (1 Cor. xiv. 13-15), or uttering\n prophetic announcements, like the daughters of Philip (Acts\n xxi. 9), and that the permission applies only to such cases, the\n exceptional nature of which, as well as their temporary character,\n as charismatic and miraculous gifts, would prevent their being\n used as precedents for women engaging in regular public discourse\n (1 Thess. v. 19). In 1 Cor. xiv. 24 the \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (synonymous with\n the \u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 in the statutes of Hellenic religious associations)\n are mentioned as admitted along with the \u1f00\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 to the didactic\n services, and, according to _v._ 16, they had a place assigned\n to them separate from the congregation proper. We are thus led to\n see in them the uninitiated or not yet baptized believers, that\n is, the _catechumens_.--=The Sacramental part of the service=,\n the separation of which from the didactic part was rendered\n necessary on account alike of its nature and purpose, and is\n therefore found existing in the Pauline churches as well as\n in the church of Jerusalem, was scrupulously restricted in its\n observance, in Jewish and Gentile churches alike, to those who\n were in the full communion of the Christian church (Acts ii. 46;\n 1 Cor. xi. 20-23). The celebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper\n (\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, 1 Cor. xi. 21), after the pattern of the\n meal of institution, consisting of a meal partaken of in common,\n accompanied with prayer and the singing of a hymn, which at a\n later period was named the \u1f08\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, as the expression of brotherly\n love (Jude _v._ 12), was the centre and end of these _evening_\n services. The elements in the Lord\u2019s Supper were consecrated to\n their sacramental purpose by a prayer of praise and thanksgiving\n (\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1, 1 Cor. xi. 24; or \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, 1 Cor. x. 16), together\n with a recital of the words of institution which contained\n a proclamation of the death of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 26). This\n prayer was followed by the kiss of brotherhood.[10] In the\n service of song they used to all appearance besides the\n psalms some Christian hymns and doxologies (Eph. v. 19;\n Col. iii. 16).[11]--The homiletical as well as the eucharistic\n services were at first held daily; at a later period at least\n every Sunday.[12] For very soon, alongside of the Sabbath, and\n among Gentile Christians, instead of it, the first day of the\n week as the day of Christ\u2019s resurrection began to be observed as\n a festival.[13] But there is as yet no trace of the observance of\n other festivals. It cannot be exactly proved that infant baptism\n was an Apostolic practice, but it is not improbable that it\n was so.[14] Baptism was administered by complete immersion\n (Acts viii. 38) in the name of Christ or of the Trinity\n (Matt. xxviii. 19). The charism of healing the sick was exercised\n by prayer and anointing with oil (Jas. v. 14). On the other\n hand, confession of sin even apart from the public service was\n recommended (Jas. v. 16). Charismatic communication of the Spirit\n and admission to office in the church[15] was accomplished by\n prayer and laying on of hands.[16]\n\n \u00a7 17.8. =Christian Life and Ecclesiastical Discipline.=--In\n accordance with the commandment of the Lord (John xiii. 34),\n brotherly love in opposition to the selfishness of the natural\n life, was the principle of the Christian life. The power of\n youthful love, fostered by the prevalent expectation of the\n speedy return of the Lord, endeavoured at first to find for\n itself a fitting expression in the mother church of Jerusalem by\n the voluntary determination to have their goods in common,--an\n endeavour which without prejudice of its spiritual importance\n soon proved to be impracticable. On the other hand the well-to-do\n Gentile churches proved their brotherly love by collections for\n those originally poor, and especially for the church at Jerusalem\n which had suffered the special misfortune of famine. The three\n inveterate moral plagues of the ancient world, contempt of\n foreign nationalities, degradation of woman, and slavery, were\n overcome, according to Gal. iii. 28, by gradual elevation of\n inward feeling without any violent struggle against existing laws\n and customs, and the consciousness of common membership in the\n one head in heaven hallowed all the relationships of the earthly\n life. Even in apostolic times the bright mirror of Christian\n purity was no doubt dimmed by spots of rust. Hypocrisy (Acts v.)\n and variance (Acts vi.) in single cases appeared very early in\n the mother church; but the former was punished by a fearfully\n severe judgment, the latter was overcome by love and sweet\n reasonableness. In the rich Gentile churches, such as those\n of Corinth and Thessalonica, a worldly spirit in the form of\n voluptuousness, selfishness, pride, etc., made its appearance,\n but was here also rooted out by apostolic exhortation and\n discipline. If any one caused public scandal by serious departure\n from true doctrine or Christian conduct, and in spite of pastoral\n counsel persisted in his error, he was by the judgment of the\n church cast out, but the penitent was received again after his\n sincerity had been proved (1 Cor. v. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 5).\n\n\n \u00a7 18. HERESIES IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.[17]\n\n When Christianity began its career of world conquest in the preaching\nof the Apostle Paul, the representatives of the intellectual culture\nof the ancient world assumed toward it an attitude, either of utter\nindifference, or of keen hostility, or of readiness to accept Christian\nelements, while retaining along with these many of their old notions.\nFrom this mixing of heterogeneous elements a fermentation arose which\nwas the fruitful mother of numerous heresies.\n\n \u00a7 18.1. =Jewish Christianity and the Council of Apostles.=--The\n Lord had commanded the disciples to preach the gospel to all\n nations (Matt. xxviii. 19), and so they could not doubt that the\n whole heathen world was called to receive the church\u2019s heritage;\n but feeling themselves bound by utterances of the Old Testament\n regarding the eternal validity of the law of Moses, and having\n not yet penetrated the full significance of the saying of Christ\n (Mark v. 17), they thought that incorporation into Judaism by\n circumcision was still an indispensable condition of reception\n into the kingdom of Christ. The Hellenist Stephen represented a\n more liberal tendency (Acts vi. 14); and Philip, also a Hellenist,\n preached at least occasionally to the Samaritans, and the\n Apostles recognised his work by sending down Peter and John\n (Acts viii. 14). On the other hand, it needed an immediate\n divine revelation to convince Peter that a Gentile thirsting for\n salvation was just as such fit for the kingdom of God (Acts x.).\n And even this revelation remained without any decisive influence\n on actual missionary enterprise. They were Hellenistic Jews who\n finally took the bold step of devoting themselves without reserve\n to the conversion of the Gentiles at Antioch (Acts xi. 19). To\n foster the movement there the Apostles sent Barnabas, who entered\n into it with his whole soul, and in Paul associated with himself\n a yet more capable worker. After the notable success of their\n first missionary journey had vindicated their claim and calling\n as Apostles of the Gentiles, the arrival of Jewish zealots in\n the Antiochean church occasioned the sending of Paul and Barnabas\n to Jerusalem, about A.D. 51, in order finally to settle this\n important dispute. At a Council of the Apostles convened there\n Peter and James the Just delivered the decision that Gentile\n converts should only be required to observe certain legal\n restrictions, and these, as it would seem from the conditions\n laid down (Acts xv. 20), of a similar kind to those imposed\n upon proselytes of the gate. An arrangement come to at this\n time between the two Antiochean Apostles and Peter, James, and\n John, led to the recognition of the former as Apostles of the\n Gentiles and the latter as Apostles of the Jews (Gal. ii. 1-10).\n Nevertheless during a visit to Antioch Peter laid himself open\n to censure for practical inconsistency and weak connivance with\n the fanaticism of certain Jewish Christians, and had to have\n the truth respecting it very pointedly told him by Paul (Gal.\n ii. 11-14). The destruction of the temple and the consequent\n cessation of the entire Jewish worship led to the gradual\n disappearance of non-sectarian Jewish Christianity and its\n amalgamation with Gentile Christianity. The remnant of Jewish\n Christianity which still in the altered condition of things\n continued to cling to its principles and practice assumed ever\n more and more the character of a sect, and drifted into open\n heresy. (Comp. \u00a7 28).\n\n \u00a7 18.2. =The Apostolic Basis of Doctrine.=--The need of fixing\n the apostolically accredited accounts of the life of the\n Redeemer by written documents, led to the origin of the Gospels.\n The continued connection of the missionary Apostles with the\n churches founded by them, or even their authority of general\n superintendence, called forth the apostolic doctrinal epistles.\n A beginning of the collection and general circulation of the New\n Testament writings was made at an early date by the communication\n of these being made by one church to another (Col. iv. 16). There\n was as yet no confession of faith as a standard of orthodoxy, but\n the way was prepared by adopting Matt. xxviii. 19 as a confession\n by candidates for baptism. Paul set up justification through\n faith alone (Gal. i. 8, 9), and John, the incarnation of God in\n Christ (1 John iv. 3), as indispensable elements in a Christian\n confession.\n\n \u00a7 18.3. =False Teachers.=--The first enemy from within its own\n borders which Christianity had to confront was the ordinary\n Pharisaic Judaism with its stereotyped traditional doctrine, its\n lifeless work-righteousness, its unreasonable national prejudices,\n and its perversely carnal Messianic expectations. Its shibboleth\n was the obligation of the Gentiles to observe the Mosaic\n ceremonial law, the Sabbath, rules about meats, circumcision,\n as an indispensable condition of salvation. This tendency had\n its origin in the mother church of Jerusalem, but was there\n at a very early date condemned by the Apostolic Council. This\n party nevertheless pursued at all points the Apostle Paul with\n bitter enmity and vile calumnies. Traces of a manifestation of a\n Sadducean or sceptical spirit may perhaps already be found in the\n denial of the resurrection which in 1 Cor. xv. Paul opposes. On\n the other hand, at a very early period Greek philosophy got mixed\n up with Christianity. Apollos, a philosophically cultured Jew\n of Alexandria, had at first conceived of Christianity from the\n speculative side, and had in this form preached it with eloquence\n and success at Corinth. Paul did not contest the admissibility\n of this mode of treatment. He left it to the verdict of history\n (1 Cor. iii. 11-14), and warned against an over-estimation of\n human wisdom (1 Cor. ii. 1-10). Among many of the seekers after\n wisdom in Corinth, little as this was intended by Apollos, the\n simple positive preaching of Paul lost on this account the favour\n that it had enjoyed before. In this may be found perhaps the\n first beginnings of that fourfold party faction which arose\n in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. i.). The Judaists appealed to\n the authority of the Apostle Peter (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039a\u03b7\u03c6\u1fb6); the Gentile\n Christians were divided into the parties of Apollos and of Paul,\n or by the assumption of the proud name \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, sought to\n free themselves from the recognition of any Apostolic authority.\n Paul successfully opposes these divisions in his Epistle to\n the Corinthians. Apprehension of a threatened growth of gnostic\n teachers is first expressed in the Apostle Paul\u2019s farewell\n addresses to the elders of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 29); and in the\n Epistle to the Colossians, as well as in the Pastoral Epistles,\n this \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is expressly opposed as manifesting itself\n in the adoption of oriental theosophy, magic, and theurgy, in an\n arbitrary asceticism that forbade marriage and restricted the use\n of food, in an imaginary secret knowledge of the nature and order\n of the heavenly powers and spirits, and idealistic volatilizing\n of concrete Christian doctrines, such as that of the resurrection\n (2 Tim. ii. 18). In the First Epistle of John, again, that\n special form of Gnosis is pointed out which denied the\n incarnation of God in Christ by means of docetic conceptions; and\n in the Second Epistle of Peter, as well as in the Epistle of Jude,\n we have attention called to antinomian excrescences, unbridled\n immorality and wanton lust in the development of magical and\n theurgical views. It should not, however, be left unmentioned,\n that modern criticism has on many grounds contested the\n authenticity of the New Testament writings just named, and\n has assigned the first appearance of heretical gnosis to\n the beginning of the second century. The Nicolaitans of the\n Apocalypse (iii. 5, 14, 15, 20) appear to have been an antinomian\n sect of Gentile Christian origin, spread more or less through the\n churches of Asia Minor, perhaps without any gnostic background,\n which in direct and intentional opposition to the decision of the\n Apostolic Council (Acts xv. 29) took part in heathen sacrificial\n feasts (comp. 1 Cor. x.), and justified or at least apologized\n for fleshly impurity.\n\n\n\n\n FIRST DIVISION.\n\n History of the Development of the Church during the\n Gr\u00e6co-Roman and Gr\u00e6co-Byzantine Periods.\n\n\n \u00a7 19. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES\n OF THOSE PERIODS.\n\n At the very beginning of the Apostolic Age the universalistic\nspirit of Christianity had already broken through the particularistic\nlimitations of Judaism. When once the substantial truth of divine\nsalvation had cast off the Judaistic husk in which the kernel had\nripened, those elements of culture which had come to maturity in the\nRoman-Greek world were appropriated as means for giving to Christian\nideas a fuller and clearer expression. The task now to be undertaken was\nthe development of Christianity on the lines of Gr\u00e6co-Roman culture, or\nthe expansion of the church\u2019s apostolicity into catholicity. The ancient\nchurch of the Roman and Byzantine world fulfilled this task, but in\ndoing so the sound evangelical catholic development encountered at every\npoint elements of a false, because an unevangelical, Catholicism. The\ncentre, then, of all the movements of Church History is to be found\nin the Teutono-Roman-Slavic empire. The Roman church preserved and\nincreased her importance by attaching herself to this new empire, and\nundertaking its spiritual formation and education. The Byzantine church,\non the other hand, falling into a state of inward stagnation, and\npressed from without by the forces of Islam, passes into decay as\na national church.\n\n The history of this first stage of the development of the church falls\ninto =three periods=. The first period reaches down to Constantine the\nGreat, who, in A.D. 323, secured to Christianity and the church a final\nvictory over Paganism. The second period brings us down to the close of\nthe universal catholic or \u0153cumenical elaboration of doctrine attained by\nthe church under its old classical form of culture, that is, down to the\nclose of the Monothelite controversy (\u00a7 52, 8), by the Sixth \u0152cumenical\nCouncil at Constantinople in A.D. 680. But inasmuch as the _Concilium\nquini-sextum_ in A.D. 692 undertook simply the completion of the work of\nthe two previous \u0153cumenical synods with reference to church constitution\nand worship, and as here the first grounds were laid for the great\npartition of the church into Eastern and Western (\u00a7 63, 2), we prefer\nto make A.D. 692 the closing limit of the second period. The conclusion\nof the third period, is found in the overthrow of Constantinople\nby the Turks in A.D. 1453. The first two periods are most evidently\ndistinguished from one another in respect of the outward condition of\nthe church. Before the times of Constantine, it lives and develops its\nstrength amid the oppression and persecution of the pagan state; under\nConstantine the state itself becomes Christian and the church enjoys all\nthe advantages, all the care and furtherance, that earthly protection\ncan afford. Along with all this worldly splendour, however, a worldly\ndisposition makes its way into the church, and in exchange for its\nprotection of the church the state assumes an autocratic lordship over\nit. Even in the inner, and pre-eminently doctrinal, development of the\nchurch the two periods of this age are essentially distinguished from\none another. While it was the church\u2019s endeavour to adopt only the forms\nof culture of ancient paganism, while rejecting its godless substance,\nit too often happened that pagan ideas got mixed up with Christianity,\nand it was threatened with a similar danger from the side of Judaism. It\nwas therefore the special task of the church during the first period to\nresist the encroachment of anti-Christian Jewish and Pagan elements. In\nthe first period the perfecting of its own genuinely Christian doctrinal\ncontent was still a purely subjective matter, resting only on the\npersonal authority of the particular church teachers. In the second\nperiod, on the other hand, the church universal, as represented by\n\u0153cumenical synods with full power, proceeds to the laying down and\nestablishing of an objective-ecclesiastical, \u0153cumenical-catholic system\nof doctrine, constituting an all-sided development of the truth in\nopposition to the one-sided development of subjective heretical teaching.\nIn doing so, however, the culture of the old Gr\u00e6co-Roman world exhausted\nits powers. The measure of development which these were capable of\naffording the church was now completed, and its future must be looked\nfor among the new nationalities of Teutonic, Romanic, and Slavic origin.\nWhile the Byzantine empire, and with it the glory of the ancient church\nof the East was pressed and threatened by Islam, a new empire arose\nin the West in youthful vigour and became the organ of a new phase of\ndevelopment in the history of the church; and while the church in the\nWest struggled after a new and higher point in her development, the\nEastern church sank ever deeper down under outward oppression and inward\nweakness. The partition of the church into an Eastern and a Western\ndivision, which became imminent at the close of the second period, and\nwas actually carried out during the third period, cut off the church of\nthe East from the influence of those new vital forces, political as well\nas ecclesiastical, and which it might otherwise, perhaps, have shared\nwith the West. By the overthrow of the East-Roman empire the last\nsupport of its splendour and even of its vital activity was taken away.\nHere too ends the history of the church on the lines of purely antique\nclassical forms of culture. The remnants of the church of the East were\nno longer capable of any living historical development under the\noppression of the Turkish rule.\n\n\n\n\n FIRST SECTION.\n\n History of the Gr\u00e6co-Roman Church during the\n Second and Third Centuries (A.D. 70-323).[18]\n\n\n \u00a7 20. CONTENT, DISTRIBUTION AND BOUNDARIES\n OF THIS PERIOD.[19]\n\n As the history of the beginnings of the church has been treated by\nus under two divisions, so also the first period of the history of\nits development may be similarly divided into the =Post-Apostolic Age=,\nwhich reaches down to the middle of the second century, and the =Age\nof the Old Catholic Church=, which ends with the establishment of the\nchurch under and by Constantine, and at that point passes over into the\nAge of the \u0153cumenical Catholic or Byzantine-Roman Imperial Church.--As\nthe Post-Apostolic Age was occupied with an endeavour to appropriate\nand possess in a fuller and more vigorous manner the saving truths\ntransmitted by the Apostles, and presents as the result of its struggles,\nerrors, and victories, the Old Catholic Church as a unity, firmly bound\nfrom within, strictly free of all compulsion from without, so on the\nbasis thus gained, the Old Catholic Church goes forward to new conflicts,\nfailures, and successes, by means of which the foundations are laid for\nthe future perfecting of it through its establishment by the state into\nthe \u0152cumenical Catholic Imperial Church.[20]\n\n \u00a7 20.1. =The Post-Apostolic Age.=--The peril to which the church\n was exposed from the introduction of Judaistic and Pagan elements\n with her new converts was much more serious not only than the\n Jewish spirit of persecution, crushed as it was into impotence\n through the overthrow of Jewish national independence, but also\n than the persecution of anti-Christian paganism which at this\n time was only engaged upon sporadically. All the more threatening\n was this peril from the peculiar position of the church during\n this age. Since the removal of the personal guidance of the\n Apostles that control was wanting which only at a subsequent\n period was won again by the establishment of a New Testament\n canon and the laying down of a normative rule of faith, as well\n as by the formation of a hierarchical-episcopal constitution. In\n all the conflicts, then, that occupied this age, the first and\n main point was to guard the integrity and purity of traditional\n Apostolic Christianity against the anti-Christian Jewish and\n Pagan ideas which new converts endeavoured to import into it from\n their earlier religious life. Those Judaic ideas thus imported\n gave rise to Ebionism; those Pagan ideas gave rise to Gnosticism\n (\u00a7\u00a7 26-28). And just as the Pauline Gentile Christianity, in so\n far as it was embraced under this period (\u00a7 30, 2), secured the\n victory over the moderate and non-heretical Jewish Christianity,\n this latter became more and more assimilated to the former, and\n gradually passed over into it (\u00a7 28, 1). Add to this the need,\n ever more pressingly felt, of a sifting of the not yet uniformly\n recognised early Christian literature that had passed into\n ecclesiastical use (\u00a7 36, 7, 8) by means of the establishment\n of a New Testament =canon=; that is, the need of a collection of\n writings admitted to be of Apostolic origin to occupy henceforth\n the first rank as a standard and foundation for the purposes of\n teaching and worship, and to form a bulwark against the flood\n of heretical and non-heretical =Pseudepigraphs= that menaced the\n purity of doctrine (\u00a7 32). Further, the no less pressing need for\n the construction of a universally valid =rule of faith= (\u00a7 35, 2),\n as an intellectual bond of union and mark of recognition for\n all churches and believers scattered over the earth\u2019s surface.\n Then again, in the victory that was being secured by Episcopacy\n over Presbyterianism, and in the introduction of a Synodal\n constitution for counsel and resolution, the first stage\n in the formation of a hierarchical organization was reached\n (\u00a7 34). Finally, the last dissolving action of this age was the\n suppression of the fanatical prophetic and fanatical rigorist\n spirit, which, reaching its climax in =Montanism=, directed\n itself mainly against the tendency already appearing on many\n sides to tone down the unflinching severity of ecclesiastical\n discipline, to make modifications in constitution, life and\n conversation in accordance with the social customs of the world,\n and to settle down through disregard of the speedy return of\n the Lord, so confidently expected by the early Christians, into\n an easy satisfaction in the enjoyment of earthly possessions\n (\u00a7 40, 5).\n\n \u00a7 20.2. =The Age of the Old Catholic Church.=--The designation\n of the universal Christian church as Catholic dates from the time\n of Iren\u00e6us, that is, from the beginning of this second part of\n our first period. This name characterizes the church as the one\n universally (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5) spread and recognised from the time of\n the Apostles, and so stigmatizes every opposition to the one\n church that alone stands on the sure foundation of holy scripture\n and pure apostolic tradition, as belonging to the manifold\n particularistic heretical and schismatical sects. The church\n of this particular age, however, has been designated the Old\n Catholic Church as distinguished from the \u0153cumenical Catholic\n church of the following period, as well as from the Roman\n Catholic and Greek Catholic churches, into which afterwards the\n \u0153cumenical Catholic church was divided.\n\n At the beginning of this age, the heretical as well as the\n non-heretical Ebionism may be regarded as virtually suppressed,\n although some scanty remnants of it might yet be found. The most\n brilliant period of Gnosticism, too, when the most serious danger\n from Paganism within the Christian pale in the form of Hellenic\n and Syro-Chaldaic Theosophy and Mysteriosophy threatened the\n church, was already past. But in Manich\u00e6ism (\u00a7 29) there appeared,\n during the second half of the third century, a new peril of a\n no less threatening kind, inspired by Parseeism and Buddhism,\n which, however, the church on the ground of the solid foundations\n already laid was able to resist with powerful weapons. On the\n other hand the Pagan element within the church asserted itself\n more and more decidedly (\u00a7 39, 6) by means of the intrusion of\n magico-theurgical superstition into the catholic doctrine of\n the efficacy of the church sacraments and sacramental acts\n (\u00a7 58). But now also, with Marcus Aurelius, Paganism outside\n of Christianity as embodied in the Roman state, begins the\n war of extermination against the church that was ever more and\n more extending her boundaries. Such manifestation of hostility,\n however, was not able to subdue the church, but rather led, under\n and through Constantine the Great, to the Christianizing of the\n state and the establishment of the church. During the same time\n the episcopal and synodal-hierarchical organization of the church\n was more fully developed by the introduction of an order of\n Metropolitans, and then in the following period it reached its\n climax in the oligarchical Pentarchy of Patriarchs (\u00a7 46, 1),\n and in the institution of \u0153cumenical Synods (\u00a7 43, 2). By the\n condemnation and expulsion of Montanism, in which the inner\n development of the Post-Apostolic Age reached its special and\n distinctive conclusion, the endeavour to naturalize Christianity\n among the social customs of the worldly life was certainly\n legitimized by the church, and could now be unrestrictedly\n carried out in a wider and more comprehensive way. In the\n Trinitarian controversies, too, in which several prominent\n theologians engaged, the first step was taken in that\n \u0153cumenical-ecclesiastical elaboration of doctrine which occupied\n and dominated the whole of the following period (\u00a7\u00a7 49-52).\n\n \u00a7 20.3. =The Point of Transition from the One Age to the Other=\n may unhesitatingly be set down at A.D. 170. The following are the\n most important data in regard thereto. The death about A.D. 165\n of Justin Martyr, who marks the highest point reached in the\n Post-Apostolic Age, and forms also the transition to the Old\n Catholic Age; and Iren\u00e6us, flourishing somewhere about A.D. 170,\n who was the real inaugurator of this latter age. Besides these\n we come upon the beginnings of the Trinitarian controversies\n about the year 170. Finally, the rejection of Montanism from the\n universal Catholic church was effected about the year 170 by means\n of the Synodal institution called into existence for that very\n purpose.\n\n\n\n\n I. THE RELATIONSHIP OF EXTRA-CHRISTIAN PAGANISM AND\n JUDAISM TO THE CHURCH.[21]\n\n\n \u00a7 21. THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n Amid all the persecutions which the church during this period had to\nsuffer it spread with rapid strides throughout the whole Roman empire,\nand even far beyond its limits. Edessa, the capital of the kingdom of\nOsrho\u00ebne in Mesopotamia, had, as early as A.D. 170, a Christian prince,\nnamed =Abgar Bar Maanu=, whose coins were the first to bear the sign\nof the cross. We find Christianity gaining a footing contemporaneously\nin Persia, Media, Bactria, and Parthia. In the third century we find\ntraces of its presence in Armenia. Paul himself made his way into\nArabia (Gal. i. 17). In the third century Origen received an invitation\nfrom a \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, who wished to receive information about\nChristianity. At another time he accepted a call from that country in\norder to settle an ecclesiastical dispute (\u00a7 33, 6). From Alexandria,\nwhere Mark had exercised his ministry, the Christian faith spread out\ninto other portions of Africa, into Cyrene and among the Coptic races,\nneighbouring upon the Egyptians properly so-called. The church of\nproconsular Africa, with Carthage for its capital, stood in close\nconnection with Rome. Mauretania and Numidia had, even in the third\ncentury, so many churches, that Cyprian could bring together at Carthage\na Synod of eighty-seven bishops. In Gaul there were several flourishing\nchurches composed of colonies and teachers from Asia Minor, such as\nthe churches of Lyons, Vienne, etc. At a later period seven missionary\nteachers of the Christian faith came out of Italy into Gaul, among whom\nwas Dionysius, known as St. Denis, the founder of the church at Paris.\nThe Roman colonies in the provinces of the Rhine and the Danube had\nseveral flourishing congregations as early as the third century.\n\n The emptiness and corruption of paganism was the negative, the divine\npower of the gospel was the positive, means of this wonderful extension.\nThis divine power was manifested in the zeal and self-denial of\nChristian teachers and missionaries (\u00a7 34, 1), in the life and\nwalk of Christians, in the brotherly love which they showed, in\nthe steadfastness and confidence of their faith, and above all in\nthe joyfulness with which they met the cruellest of deaths by martyrdom.\nThe blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church, and it was not\nan unheard-of circumstance that the executioners of those Christian\nwitnesses became their successors in the noble army of confessors.\n\n\n \u00a7 22. PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIANS IN THE\n ROMAN EMPIRE.[22]\n\n The Law of the Twelve Tables had already forbidden the exercise\nof foreign modes of worship within the Roman empire (_Religiones\nperegrin\u00e6_, _Collegia illicita_), for religion was exclusively an affair\nof the state and entered most intimately into all civil and municipal\nrelations, and on this account whatever endangered the national religion\nwas regarded as necessarily imperilling the state itself. Political\nconsiderations, however, led to the granting to conquered nations\nthe free use of their own forms of worship. This concession did not\nmaterially help Christianity after it had ceased, in the time of Nero,\nto be regularly confounded by the Roman authorities with Judaism,\nas had been the case in the time of Claudius, and Judaism, after\nthe destruction of Jerusalem, had been sharply distinguished from\nit. It publicly proclaimed its intention to completely dislodge all\nother religions, and the rapidity with which it spread showed how\nenergetically its intentions were carried out. The close fellowship\nand brotherliness that prevailed among Christians, as well as their\nexclusive, and during times of persecution even secret assemblies,\naroused the suspicion that they had political tendencies. Their\nwithdrawal from civil and military services on account of the pagan\nceremonies connected with them, especially their refusal to burn incense\nbefore the statues of the emperor, also the steadfastness of their\nfaith, which was proof against all violence and persuasion alike, their\nretiredness from the world, etc., were regarded as evidence of their\nindifference or hostility to the general well-being of the state, as\ninvincible stiff-neckedness, as contumacy, sedition, and high treason.\nThe heathen populace saw in the Christians the sacrilegious enemies and\ndespisers of their gods; and the Christian religion, which was without\ntemples, altars and sacrifices, seemed to them pure Atheism. The most\nhorrible calumnies, that in their assemblies (_Agap\u00e6_) the vilest\nimmoralities were practised (_Concubitus \u0152dipodei_), children slain\nand human flesh eaten (_Epul\u00e6 Thyeste\u00e6_, comp. \u00a7 36, 5), were readily\nbelieved. All public misfortunes were thus attributed to the wrath\nof the gods against the Christians, who treated them with contempt.\n_Non pluit Deus, duc ad Christianos!_ The heathen priests also, the\ntemple servants and the image makers were always ready in their own\ncommon interests to stir up the suspicions of the people. Under such\ncircumstances it is not to be wondered at that the fire of persecution\non the part of the heathen people and the heathen state continued to\nrage for centuries.\n\n \u00a7 22.1. =Claudius, Nero and Domitian.=--Regarding the Emperor\n =Tiberius= (A.D. 14-37), we meet in Tertullian with the\n undoubtedly baseless tradition, that, impressed by the story\n told him by Pilate, he proposed to the Senate to introduce Christ\n among the gods, and on the rejection of this proposal, threatened\n the accusers of the Christians with punishment. The statement\n in Acts xviii. 2, that the Emperor =Claudius= (A.D. 41-54)\n expelled from Rome all Jews and with them many Christians also,\n is illustrated in a very circumstantial manner by Suetonius:\n _Claudius Jud\u00e6os impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma\n expulit_. The tumults, therefore, between the Jews and the\n Christians, occurring about the year 51 or 52, gave occasion to\n this decree. The first persecution of the Christians proceeding\n from a Roman ruler which was directed against the Christians as\n such, was carried out by the Emperor =Nero= (A.D. 54-68) in the\n year 64, in consequence of a nine days\u2019 conflagration in Rome,\n the origin of which was commonly ascribed by the people to the\n Emperor himself. Nero, however, laid the blame upon the hated\n Christians, and perpetrated upon them the most ingeniously\n devised cruelties. Sewn up in skins of wild animals they were\n cast out to be devoured of dogs; others were crucified, or wrapt\n in tow and besmeared with pitch, they were fixed upon sharp\n spikes in the imperial gardens where the people gathered to\n behold gorgeous spectacles, and set on fire to lighten up\n the night (Tac., _Ann._, xv. 44). After the death of Nero the\n legend spread among the Christians, that he was not dead but had\n withdrawn beyond the Euphrates, soon to return as Antichrist.\n Nero\u2019s persecution seems to have been limited to Rome, and to\n have ended with his death.--It was under =Domitian= (A.D. 81-96)\n that individual Christians were for the first time subjected\n to confiscation of goods and banishment for godlessness or the\n refusal to conform to the national religion. Probably also, the\n execution of his own cousin, the Consul Flavius Clemens [Clement],\n on account of his \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and his \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03b8\u03b7 (Dio Cass., lxvii. 14), as well as the banishment of Clemens\u2019\n [Clement\u2019s] wife, Flavia Domitilla (A.D. 93), was really on\n account of their attachment to the Christian faith (\u00a7 30, 3). The\n latter at least is proved by two inscriptions in the catacombs to\n have been undoubtedly a Christian. Domitian insisted upon having\n information as to the political significance of the kingdom of\n Christ, and brought from Palestine to Rome two relatives of Jesus,\n grandsons of Jude, the brother of the Lord, but their hands horny\n with labour satisfied him that his suspicions had been unfounded.\n The philanthropic Emperor =Nerva= (A.D. 96-98) recalled the\n exiles and did not listen to those who clamoured bitterly against\n the Christians, but Christianity continued after as well as\n before a _Religo illicita_, or rather was now reckoned such,\n after it had been more distinctly separated from Judaism.[23]\n\n \u00a7 22.2. =Trajan and Hadrian.=--With =Trajan= (A.D. 98-117),\n whom historians rightly describe as a just, earnest, and mild\n ruler, the persecutions of the Christians enter upon a new\n stage. He renewed the old strict prohibition of secret societies,\n _het\u00e6r\u00e6_, which could easily be made to apply to the Christians.\n In consequence of this law the younger Pliny, as Governor\n of Bithynia, punished with death those who were accused as\n Christians, if they would not abjure Christianity. But his\n doubts being awakened by the great number of every rank and age\n and of both sexes against whom accusations were brought, and in\n consequence of a careful examination, which showed the Christians\n to be morally pure and politically undeserving of suspicion and\n to be guilty only of stubborn attachment to their superstition,\n he asked definite instructions from the Emperor. Trajan approved\n of what he had done and what he proposed; the Christians were\n not to be sought after and anonymous accusations were not to\n be regarded, but those formally complained of and convicted, if\n they stubbornly refused to sacrifice to the gods and burn incense\n before the statues of the Emperor were to be punished with death\n (A.D. 112). This imperial rescript continued for a long time\n the legal standard for judicial procedure with reference to the\n Christians. The persecution under Trajan extended even to Syria\n and Palestine. In Jerusalem the aged bishop Simeon, the successor\n of James, accused as a Christian and a descendant of David, after\n being cruelly scourged, died a martyr\u2019s death on the cross in\n A.D. 107. The martyrdom, too, of the Antiochean bishop, Ignatius,\n in all probability took place during the reign of Trajan (\u00a7 30, 5).\n An edict of toleration supposed to have been issued at a later\n period by Trajan, a copy of which exists in Syriac and Armenian,\n is now proved to be apocryphal.--During the reign of =Hadrian=\n (A.D. 117-138), the people began to carry out in a tumultuous\n way the execution of the Christians on the occasion of the\n heathen festivals. On the representation of the proconsul of Asia,\n Serenius Granianus, Hadrian issued a rescript addressed to his\n successor, Minucius Fundanus, against such acts of violence, but\n executions still continued carried out according to the forms of\n law. The genuineness of the rescript, however, as given at the\n close of the first Apology of Justin Martyr, has been recently\n disputed by many. In Rome itself, between A.D. 135 and A.D. 137,\n bishop Telesphorus, with many other Christians, fell as victims\n of the persecution. The tradition of the fourth century, that\n Hadrian wished to build a temple to Christ, is utterly without\n historical foundation. His unfavourable disposition toward the\n Christians clearly appears from this, that he caused a temple of\n Venus to be built upon the spot where Christ was crucified, and a\n statue of Jupiter to be erected on the rock of the sepulchre, in\n order to pollute those places which Christians held most sacred.\n\n \u00a7 22.3. =Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.=--Under =Antoninus\n Pius= (A.D.138-161), the tumultuous charges of the people against\n the Christians, on account of visitations of pestilence in many\n places, were renewed, but the mildly disposed emperor sought to\n protect them as much as possible from violence. The rescript,\n however, _Ad Commune Asi\u00e6_, which bears his name is very probably\n of Christian authorship.--The persecutions again took a new turn\n under =Marcus Aurelius= (A.D. 161-180) who was, both as a man and\n a ruler, one of the noblest figures of antiquity. In the pride\n of his stoical wisdom, however, despising utterly the enthusiasm\n of the Christians, he not only allowed free scope to the popular\n hatred, but also introduced the system of espionage, giving to\n informers the confiscated property of the Christians, and even\n permitting the use of torture, in order to compel them to recant,\n and thus gave occasion to unexampled triumphs of Christian\n heroism. At Rome, the noble Apologist Justin Martyr, denounced\n by his opponent the philosopher Crescens, after cruel and bloody\n scourging, died under the executioner\u2019s axe about A.D. 165\n (\u00a7 30, 9).--In regard to a very severe persecution endured by\n the church of Smyrna, we possess an original report of it sent\n from that church to one closely related to it, embellished\n with legendary details or interpolated, which Eusebius has\n incorporated in his Church History. The substance of it is a\n description of the glorious martyr death of their aged bishop\n Polycarp (\u00a7 30, 6), who, because he refused to curse the Lord\n whom he had served for eighty-six years, was made to mount the\n funeral pile, and while rejoicing in the midst of the flames,\n received the crown of martyrdom. According to the story the\n flames gathered around him like a wind-filled sail, and when a\n soldier pierced him with his sword, suddenly a white dove flew\n up; moreover the glorified spirit also appeared to a member of\n the church in a vision, clothed in a white garment. Eusebius\n places the date of Polycarp\u2019s death shortly before A.D. 166.\n But since it has been shown by Waddington, on the basis of\n an examination of recently discovered inscriptions, that the\n proconsul of Asia, Statius Quadratus, mentioned in the report\n of the church of Smyrna, did not hold that office in A.D. 166,\n but in A.D. 155-156, the most important authorities have come to\n regard either A.D. 155 or A.D. 156 as the date of his martyrdom.\n Still some whose opinions are worthy of respect refuse to\n accept this view, pointing out the absence of that chronological\n statement from the report in Eusebius and to its irreconcilability\n with the otherwise well-supported facts, that Polycarp was on\n a visit to Rome in A.D. 155 (\u00a7 37, 2), and that the reckoning\n of the day of his death in the report as \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\n would suit indeed the Easter of A.D. 155, as well as that of\n A.D. 166, but not that of A.D. 156. [24] The legend of the _Legio\n fulminatrix_, that in the war against the Marcomanni in A.D. 174\n the prayers of the Christian soldiers of this legion called forth\n rain and thunder, and thus saved the Emperor and his army from\n the danger of perishing by thirst, whereupon this modified law\n against the accusers of the Christians was issued, has, so far\n as the first part is concerned, its foundation in history, only\n that the heathen on the other hand ascribed the miracle to their\n prayer to _Jupiter Pluvius_. [25]--Regarding the persecution\n at Lyons and Vienne in A.D. 177, we also possess a contemporary\n report from the Christian church of these places (\u00a7 32, 8).\n Bishop Pothinus, in his ninetieth year, sank under the effects\n of tortures continued during many days in a loathsome prison.\n The young and tender slave-girl Blandina was scourged, her\n body scorched upon a red-hot iron chair, her limbs torn by wild\n beasts and at last her life taken; but under all her tortures she\n continued to repeat her joyful confession: \u201cI am a Christian and\n nothing wicked is tolerated among us.\u201d Under similar agonies the\n boy Ponticus, in his fifteenth year, showed similar heroism. The\n dead bodies of the martyrs were laid in heaps upon the streets,\n until at last they were burnt and their ashes strewn upon the\n Rhone. =Commodus= (A.D. 180-192), the son of Marcus Aurelius, who\n in every other respect was utterly disreputable, influenced by\n his mistress Marcia, showed himself inclined, by the exercise\n of his clemency, to remit the sentences of the Christians. The\n persecution at Scillita in North Africa, during the first year\n of the reign of Commodus, in which the martyr Speratus suffered,\n together with eleven companions, was carried out in accordance\n with the edict of Marcus Aurelius.\n\n \u00a7 22.4. =Septimius Severus and Maximinus Thrax.=--=Septimius\n Severus= (A.D. 193-211), whom a Christian slave, Proculus,\n had healed of a sickness by anointing with oil, was at first\n decidedly favourable to the Christians. Even in A.D. 197, after\n his triumphal entrance into Rome, he took them under his personal\n protection when the popular clamour, which such a celebration\n was fitted to excite, was raised against them. The judicial\n persecution, too, which some years later, A.D. 200, his deputy\n in North Africa carried on against the Christians on the basis\n of existing laws because they refused to sacrifice to the genius\n of the Emperor, he may not have been able to prevent. On the\n other hand, he did himself, in A.D. 202, issue an edict which\n forbade conversions to Judaism and Christianity. The storm of\n persecution thereby excited was directed therefore first of all\n and especially against the catechumens and the neophytes, but\n frequently also, overstepping the letter of the edict, it was\n turned against the older Christians. The persecution seems\n to have been limited to Egypt and North Africa. At Alexandria\n Leonidas, the father of Origen, was beheaded. The female slave,\n Potami\u00e6na, celebrated as much for her moral purity as for her\n beauty, was accused by her master, whose evil passions she had\n refused to gratify, as a Christian, and was given over to the\n gladiators to be abused. She succeeded, however, in defending\n herself from pollution, and was then, along with her mother\n Marcella, slowly dipped into boiling pitch. The soldier,\n Basilides by name, who should have executed the sentence himself\n embraced Christianity, and was beheaded. The persecution raged\n with equal violence and cruelty in Carthage. A young woman of\n a noble family, Perpetua, in her twenty-second year, in spite\n of imprisonment and torture, and though the infant in her arms\n and her weeping pagan father appealed to her heart\u2019s affections,\n continued true to her faith, and was thrown to be tossed on the\n horns of a wild cow, and to die from the dagger of a gladiator.\n The slave girl Felicitas who, in the same prison, became a mother,\n showed similar courage amid similar sufferings. Persecution\n smouldered on throughout the reign of Septimius, showing itself\n in separate sporadic outbursts, but was not renewed under his son\n and successor =Caracalla= (A.D. 211-217), who in other respects\n during his reign stained with manifold cruelties, did little to\n the honour of those Christian influences by which in his earliest\n youth he had been surrounded (\u201c_lacte Christiano educatus_,\u201d\n Tert.).--That Christianity should have a place given it among the\n senseless religions favoured by =Elagabalus= or =Heliogabalus=\n (A.D. 218-222), was an absurdity which nevertheless secured for\n it toleration and quiet. His second wife, Severina or Severa, to\n whom Hippolytus dedicated his treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, was the\n first empress friendly to the Christians. =Alexander Severus=\n (A.D. 222-235), embracing a noble eclecticism, placed among his\n household gods the image of Christ, along with those of Abraham,\n Orpheus, and Apollonius of Tyana, and showed himself well\n disposed toward the Christians; while at the same time his mother,\n Julia Mamm\u00e6a, encouraged and furthered the scholarly studies of\n Origen. The golden saying of Christ, Luke vi. 31, was inscribed\n upon the gateway of his palace. His murderer, =Maximinus Thrax=\n (A.D. 235-238), from very opposition to his predecessor, became\n at once the enemy of the Christians. Clearly perceiving the\n high importance of the clergy for the continued existence of the\n church, his persecuting edict was directed solely against them.\n The imperial position which he had usurped, however, was not\n sufficiently secure to allow him to carry out his intentions\n to extremities. Under =Gordianus= the Christians had rest, and\n =Philip the Arabian= (A.D. 244-249) favoured them so openly and\n decidedly, that it came to be thought that he himself had been a\n Christian.\n\n \u00a7 22.5. =Decius, Gallus and Valerianus [Valerian].=--Soon after\n the accession of =Decius= (A.D. 249-251), in the year 250, a new\n persecution broke out that lasted without interruption for ten\n years. This was the first general persecution and was directed at\n first against the recognised heads of the churches, but by-and-by\n was extended more widely to all ranks, and exceeded all previous\n persecutions by its extent, the deliberateness of its plan,\n the rigid determination with which it was conducted, and the\n cruelties of its execution. Decius was a prudent ruler, an\n earnest man of the old school, endued with an indomitable\n will. But it was just this that drove him to the conclusion\n that Christianity, as a godless system and one opposed to\n the interests of the state, must be summarily suppressed. All\n possible means, such as confiscation of goods, banishment, severe\n tortures, or death, were tried in order to induce the Christians\n to yield. Very many spoiled by the long peace that they had\n enjoyed gave way, but on the other hand crowds of Christians,\n impelled by a yearning after the crown of martyrdom, gave\n themselves up joyfully to the prison and the stake. Those who\n fell away, the _lapsi_, were classified as the _Thurificati_\n or _Sacrificati_, who to save their lives had burnt incense or\n sacrificed to the gods, and _Libellatici_, who without doing\n this had purchased a certificate from the magistrates that they\n had done so, and _Acta facientes_, who had issued documents\n giving false statements regarding their Christianity. Those were\n called _Confessores_ who publicly professed Christ and remained\n steadfast under persecution, but escaped with their lives; those\n were called _Martyrs_ who witnessing with their blood, suffered\n death for the faith they professed. The Roman church could\n boast of a whole series of bishops who fell victims to the storm\n of persecution: Fabianus [Fabian] in A.D. 250, and Cornelius\n in A.D. 253, probably also Lucius in A.D. 254, and Stephanus in\n A.D. 257. And as in Rome, so also in the provinces, whole troops\n of confessors and martyrs met a joyful death, not only from\n among the clergy, but also from among the general members of\n the church.--Then again, under =Gallus= (A.D. 251-253), the\n persecution continued, excited anew by plagues and famine,\n but was in many ways restricted by political embarrassment.\n =Valerianus= [Valerian] (A.D. 253-260), from being a favourer of\n the Christians, began from A.D. 257, under the influence of his\n favourite Macrianus, to show himself a determined persecutor. The\n Christian pastors were at first banished, and since this had not\n the desired effect, they were afterwards punished with death. At\n this time, too, the bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, who under Decius\n had for a short season withdrawn by flight into the wilderness,\n won for himself the martyr\u2019s crown. So, likewise, in A.D. 258,\n suffered Sixtus II. of Rome. The Roman bishop was soon followed\n by his deacon Laurentius, a hero among Christian martyrs, who\n pointed the avaricious governor to the sick, the poor and the\n orphans of the congregation as the treasures of the church, and\n was then burnt alive on a fire of glowing coal. But Valerian\u2019s\n son, =Gallienus= (A.D. 260-268), by an edict addressed to the\n bishops, abolished the special persecuting statutes issued by his\n father, without, however, as he is often erroneously said to have\n done, formally recognising Christianity as a _Religio licita_.\n The Christians after this enjoyed a forty years\u2019 rest; for\n the commonly reported cruel persecution of Christians under\n =Claudius II.=, (A.D. 268-270) has been proved to be a pure\n fable of apocryphal Acts of the Martyrs; and also the persecution\n planned by =Aurelian= (A.D. 270-275), toward the close of his\n reign, was prevented by his assassination committed by a pagan\n officer.\n\n \u00a7 22.6. =Diocletian and Galerius.=--When =Diocletian=\n (A.D. 284-305) was proclaimed Emperor by the army in Chalcedon, he\n chose Nicomedia in Bithynia as his residence, and transferred the\n conduct of the war to the general Maximianus [Maximian] Herculius\n with the title of C\u00e6sar, who, after the campaign had been closed\n successfully in A.D. 286, was raised to the rank of Augustus or\n joint-Emperor. New harassments from within and from without led\n the two Emperors in A.D. 286 to name two C\u00e6sars, or sub-Emperors,\n who by their being adopted were assured of succession to imperial\n rank. Diocletian assumed the administration of the East, and\n gave up Illyricum as far as Pontus to his C\u00e6sar and son-in-law\n Galerius. Maximian undertook the government of the West, and\n surrendered Gaul, Spain and Britain to his C\u00e6sar, Constantius\n Chlorus. According to Martyrologies, there was a whole legion,\n called =Legio Thebaica=, that consisted of Christian soldiers.\n This legion was originally stationed in the East, but was sent\n into the war against the Gauls, because its members refused to\n take part in the persecution of their brethren. After suffering\n decimation twice over without any result, it is said that\n =Maximian= left this legion, consisting of 6,600 men, along\n with its commander St. Maurice, to be hewn down in the pass of\n Agaunum, now called St. Moritz, in the Canton Valais. According to\n Rettberg,[26] the historical germ of this consists in a tradition\n reported by Theodoret as originating during the fifth or sixth\n century, in a letter of Eucherius bishop of Lyons, about the\n martyrdom of St. Maurice, who as _Tribunus Militum_ was executed\n at Apamea along with seventy soldiers, by the orders of Maximian.\n =Diocletian=, as the elder and supreme Emperor, was an active,\n benevolent, clear-sighted statesman and ruler, but also a zealous\n adherent of the old religion as regenerated by Neo-platonic\n influences (\u00a7 24, 2), and as such was inclined to hold\n Christianity responsible for many of the internal troubles\n of his kingdom. He was restrained from interfering with the\n Christians, however, by the policy of toleration which had\n prevailed since the time of Gallienus, as well as by his\n own benevolent disposition, and not least by the political\n consideration of the vast numbers of the Christian population.\n His own wife Prisca and his daughter Valeria had themselves\n embraced Christianity, as well as very many, and these the truest\n and most trustworthy, of the members of his household. Yet the\n incessant importunities and whispered suspicions of Galerius were\n not without success. In A.D. 298 he issued the decree, that all\n soldiers should take part in the sacrificial rites, and thus\n obliged all Christian soldiers to withdraw from the army. During\n a long sojourn in Nicomedia he finally prevailed upon the Emperor\n to order a second general persecution; yet even then Diocletian\n persisted, that in it no blood should be shed. This persecution\n opened in A.D. 303 with the imperial command to destroy the\n stately church of Nicomedia. Soon after an edict was issued\n forbidding all Christian assemblies, ordering the destruction of\n the churches, the burning of the sacred scriptures, and depriving\n Christians of their offices and of their civil rights. A\n Christian tore up the edict and was executed. Fire broke out\n in the imperial palace and Galerius blamed the Christians for\n the fire, and also charged them with a conspiracy against the\n life of the Emperor. A persecution then began to rage throughout\n the whole Roman empire, Gaul, Spain and Britain alone entirely\n escaping owing to the favour of Constantius Chlorus who governed\n these regions. All conceivable tortures and modes of death were\n practised, and new and more horrible devices were invented from\n day to day. Diocletian, who survived to A.D. 313, and Maximian,\n abdicated the imperial rank which they had jointly held in\n A.D. 305. Their places were filled by those who had been\n previously their C\u00e6sars, and Galerius as now the chief Augustus\n proclaimed as C\u00e6sars, =Severus= and =Maximinus Daza=, the most\n furious enemies of the Christians that could be found, so that the\n storm of persecution which had already begun in some measure to\n abate, was again revived in Italy by Severus and in the East by\n Maximinus. Then in order to bring all Christians into inevitable\n contact with idolatrous rites, Galerius in A.D. 308 had all\n victuals in the markets sprinkled with wine or water that\n had been offered to idols. Seized with a terrible illness,\n mortification beginning in his living body, he finally admitted\n the uselessness of all his efforts to root out Christianity, and\n shortly before his death, in common with his colleague, he issued\n in A.D. 311, a formal =edict of toleration=, which permitted to\n all Christians the free exercise of their religion and claimed in\n return their intercession for the emperor and the empire.--During\n this persecution of unexampled cruelty, lasting without\n intermission for eight years, many noble proofs were given of\n Christian heroism and of the joyousness that martyrdom inspired.\n The number of the _Lapsi_, though still considerable, was in\n proportion very much less than under the Decian persecution. How\n much truth, if any, there may have been in the later assertion of\n the Donatists (\u00a7 63, 1), that even the Roman bishop, Marcellinus\n [Marcellus] (A.D. 296-304), and his presbyters, Melchiades,\n Marcellus and Sylvester, who were also his successors in the\n bishopric, had denied Christ and sacrificed to idols, cannot\n now be ascertained. Augustine denies the charge, but even\n the Felician Catalogue of the Popes reports that Marcellinus\n [Marcellus] during the persecution became a _Thurificatus_,\n adding, however, the extenuation, that he soon thereafter, seized\n with deep penitence, suffered martyrdom. The command to deliver\n up the sacred writings gave rise to a new order of apostates,\n the so-called _Traditores_. Many had recourse to a subterfuge by\n surrendering heretical writings instead of the sacred books and\n as such, but the earnest spirit of the age treated these as no\n better than _traditors_.[27]\n\n \u00a7 22.7. =Maximinus Daza, Maxentius and Licinius.=--After the\n death of Galerius his place was taken by the Dacian Licinius,\n who shared with Maximinus the government of the East, the former\n taking the European, the latter the Asiatic part along with\n Egypt. Constantius Chlorus had died in A.D. 306, and Galerius\n had given to the C\u00e6sar Severus the empire of the West. But the\n army proclaimed Constantine, son of Constantius, as Emperor.\n He also established himself in Gaul, Spain and Britain. Then\n also Maxentius, son of the abdicated emperor Maximian, claimed\n the Western Empire, was proclaimed Augustus by the Pr\u00e6torians,\n recognised by the Roman senate, and after the overthrow of\n Severus, ruled in Italy and Africa.--The pagan fanaticism of\n =Maximinus= prevailed against the toleration edict of Galerian.\n He heartily supported the attempted expulsion of Christians on\n the part of several prominent cities, and commended the measure\n on brazen tablets. He forbade the building of churches, punished\n many with fines and dishonour, inflicted in some cases bodily\n pains and even death, and gave official sanction to perpetrating\n upon them all sorts of scandalous enormities. The _Acta Pilati_,\n a pagan pseudepigraph filled with the grossest slanders about the\n passion of Christ, was widely circulated by him and introduced as\n a reading-book for the young in the public schools. =Constantine=,\n who had inherited from his father along with his Neo-platonic\n eclecticism his toleration of the Christians, secured to the\n professors of the Christian faith in his realm the most perfect\n quiet. =Maxentius=, too, at first let them alone; but the rivalry\n and enmity that was daily increasing between him and Constantine,\n the favourer of the Christians, drew him into close connection\n with the pagan party, and into sympathy with their persecuting\n spirit. In A.D. 312 Constantine led his army over the Alps.\n Maxentius opposed him with an army drawn up in three divisions;\n but Constantine pressed on victoriously, and shattered his\n opponent\u2019s forces before the gates of Rome. Betaking himself to\n flight, Maxentius was drowned in the Tiber, and Constantine was\n then sole ruler over the entire Western Empire. At Milan he had a\n conference with Licinius, to whom he gave in marriage his sister\n Constantia. They jointly issued an edict in A.D. 313, which\n gave toleration to all forms of worship throughout the empire,\n expressly permitting conversion to Christianity, and ordering the\n restoration to the Christians of all the churches that had been\n taken from them. Soon thereafter a decisive battle was fought\n between Maximinus and Licinius. The former was defeated and took\n to flight. The friendly relations that had subsisted between\n =Constantine= and =Licinius= gave way gradually to estrangement\n and were at last succeeded by open hostility. Licinius by\n manifesting zeal as a persecutor identified himself with the\n pagan party, and Constantine threw in his lot with the Christians.\n In A.D. 323 a war broke out between these two, like a struggle\n for life and death between Paganism and Christianity. Licinius\n was overthrown and Constantine was master of the whole empire\n (\u00a7 42, 2). Eusebius in his _Vita Constantini_ reports, on the\n basis probably of a sworn statement of the emperor, that during\n the expedition against Maxentius in A.D. 312, after praying for\n the aid of the higher powers, when the sun was going down, he saw\n in heaven a shining cross in the sun with a bright inscription:\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b1. During the night Christ appeared to him in a dream,\n and commanded him to take the cross as his standard in battle\n and with it to go into battle confident of victory. In his Church\n History, Eusebius makes no mention of this tradition of the\n vision. On the other hand there is here the fact, contested\n indeed by critics, that after the victory over Maxentius the\n emperor had erected his statue in the Roman Forum, with the\n cross in his hand, and bearing the inscription: \u201cBy this sign of\n salvation have I delivered your city from the yoke of the tyrant.\n \u201d This only is certain, that the imperial standard, which had the\n unexplained name Labarum, bore the sign of the cross with the\n monogram of the name of Christ.\n\n\n \u00a7 23. CONTROVERSIAL WRITINGS OF PAGANISM.\n\n Pagan writers in their published works passed spiteful and\ncontemptuous judgments upon Christians and Christianity (Tacitus, Pliny,\nMarcus Aurelius, and the physician Galen), or, like the rhetorician\nFronto, argued against them with violent invective; while popular wit\nran riot in representing Christianity by word and picture as the devout\nworship of an ass. But even the talented satirist Lucian of Samosata was\nsatisfied with ridiculing the Christians as senseless fools. The first\nand also the most important of all really pagan advocates was Celsus,\nwho in the second century, with brilliant subtlety and scathing sarcasm\nsought to prove that the religion of the Christians was the very climax\nof unreason. In respect of ability, keenness and bitterness of polemic\nhe is closely followed by the Neo-platonist Porphyry. Far beneath both\nstands Hierocles, governor of Bithynia. Against such attacks the most\nfamous Christian teachers took the field as Apologists. They disproved\nthe calumnies and charges of the pagans, demanded fair play for the\nChristians, vindicated Christianity by the demonstration of its inner\ntruth, the witness borne to it by the life and walk of Christians,\nits establishment by miracles and prophecies, its agreement with the\nutterances and longings of the most profound philosophers, whose wisdom\nthey traced mediately or immediately from the Old Testament, and on the\nother hand, they sought to show the nothingness of the heathen gods, and\nthe religious as well as moral perversity of paganism.\n\n \u00a7 23.1. =Lucian\u2019s Satire _De Morte Peregrini_= takes the form\n of an account given by Lucian to his friend Cronius of the Cynic\n Peregrinus Proteus\u2019 burning of himself during the Olympic games\n of A.D. 165, of which he himself was a witness. Peregrinus is\n described as a low, contemptible man, a parricide and guilty\n of adultery, unnatural vice and drunkenness, who having fled\n from his home in Palestine joined the Christians, learnt their\n \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, became their prophet (\u00a7 34, 1), Thiasarch (\u00a7 17, 3)\n and Synagogeus, and as such expounded their sacred writings,\n even himself composed and addressed to the most celebrated Greek\n cities many epistles containing new ordinances and laws. When\n cast into prison he was the subject of the most extravagant\n attentions on the part of the Christians. Their \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 and \u03c7\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\n (deaconesses) nursed him most carefully, \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b1 and \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\n \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af (Agap\u00e6) were celebrated in his prison, they loaded him with\n presents, etc. Nevertheless on leaving prison, on account of his\n having eaten a forbidden kind of meat (flesh offered to idols)\n he was expelled by them. He now cast himself into the arms of\n the Cynics, travelled as the apostle of their views through the\n whole world, and ended his life in his mad thirst for fame by\n voluntarily casting himself upon the funeral pile. Lucian tells\n with scornful sneer how the superstitious people supposed that\n there had been an earthquake and that an eagle flew up from\n his ashes crying out: The earth I have lost, to Olympus I fly.\n This fable was believed, and even yet it is said that sometimes\n Peregrinus will be seen in a white garment as a spirit.--It is\n undoubtedly recorded by Aulus Gellius that a Cynic Peregrinus\n lived at this time whom he describes as _vir gravis et constans_.\n This too is told by the Apologist Tatian, who in him mocks at the\n pretension on the part of heathen philosophers to emancipation\n from all wants. But neither of them knows anything about his\n Christianity or his death by fire. It is nevertheless conceivable\n that Peregrinus had for some time connection with Christianity;\n but without this assumption it seems likely that Lucian in a\n satire which, under the combined influence of personal and class\n antipathies, aimed first and chiefly at stigmatizing Cynicism\n in the person of Peregrinus, should place Christianity alongside\n of it as what seemed to him with its contempt of the world and\n self-denial to be a new, perhaps a nobler, but still nothing more\n than a species of Cynicism. Many features in the caricature which\n he gives of the life, doings and death of Peregrinus seem to have\n been derived by him from the life of the Apostle Paul as well as\n from the account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, and especially\n from that of Polycarp (\u00a7 22, 3).[28]\n\n \u00a7 23.2. =Worshippers of an Ass= (Asinarii) was a term of\n reproach that was originally and from early times applied to the\n Jews. They now sought to have it transferred to the Christians.\n Tertullian tells of a picture publicly exhibited in Carthage\n which represented a man clothed in a toga, with the ears and hoof\n of an ass, holding a book in his hand, and had this inscription:\n _Deus Christianorum Onochoetes_. This name is variously read. If\n read as \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c7\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 it means _asini sacerdos_. Alongside of this\n we may place the picture, belonging probably to the third century,\n discovered in A.D. 1858 scratched on a wall among the ruins\n of a school for the imperial slaves, that were then excavated.\n It represents a man with an ass\u2019s head hanging on a cross, and\n beneath it the caricature of a worshipper with the words written\n in a schoolboy\u2019s hand; Alexamenos worships God (A. \u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd);\n evidently the derision of a Christian youth by a pagan companion.\n The scratching on another wall gives us probably the answer of\n the Christian: _Alexamenos fidelis_.\n\n \u00a7 23.3. =Polemic properly so-called.=--\n\n (a) The \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2 of =Celsus= is in great part preserved in\n the answer of Origen (\u00a7 31, 5). He identifies the author\n with that Celsus to whom Lucian dedicated the little work\n _Alexander or Pseudomantis_ in which he so extols the\n philosophy of Epicurus that it seems he must be regarded as\n an Epicurean. Since, however, the philosophical standpoint\n of our Celsus is that of a Platonist the assumption of the\n identity of the two has been regarded as untenable. But\n even our Celsus does not seem to have been a pure Platonist\n but an Eclectic, and as such might also show a certain\n measure of favour to the philosophy of Epicurus. Their\n age is at least the same. Lucian wrote that treatise soon\n after A.D. 180, and according to Keim, the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2 was\n probably composed about A.D. 178. Almost everything that\n modern opponents down to our own day have advanced against\n the gospel history and doctrine is found here wrought out\n with original force and subtlety, inspired with burning\n hatred and bitter irony, and highly spiced with invective,\n mockery, and wit. First of all the author introduces\n a Jew who repeats the slanders current among the Jews,\n representing Jesus as a vagabond impostor, His mother\n as an adulteress, His miracles and resurrection as lying\n fables; then enters a heathen philosopher who proves that\n both Judaism and Christianity are absurd; and finally, the\n conditions are set forth under which alone the Christians\n might claim indulgence: the abandonment of their exclusive\n attitude toward the national religion and the recognition\n of it by their taking part in the sacrifices appointed by\n the state.[29]\n\n (b) The Neo-platonist Porphyry, about A.D. 270, as reported by\n Jerome, in the XV. Book of his \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd points to a\n number of supposed contradictions in holy scripture, calls\n attention to the conflict between Paul and Peter (Gal. ii.),\n explains Daniel\u2019s prophecies as _Vaticinia post eventum_,\n and censures the allegorical interpretation of the\n Christians. Although even among the Christians themselves\n Porphyry as a philosopher was highly esteemed, and\n notwithstanding contact at certain points between his\n ethical and religious view of the world and that of the\n Christians, perhaps just because of this, he is the worst\n and most dangerous of all their pagan assailants. Against\n his controversial writings, therefore, the edict of\n Theodosius II. ordering them to be burnt was directed\n in A.D. 448 (\u00a7 42, 4), and owing to the zeal with which\n his works were destroyed the greater part of the treatises\n which quoted from it for purposes of controversy also\n perished with it--the writings of Methodius of Tyre\n (\u00a7 31, 9), Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea (\u00a7 47, 2), Philostorgius\n (\u00a7 5, 1) and Apollinaris the younger (\u00a7 47, 5). Of these\n according to Jerome those of the last named were the\n most important. In the recently discovered controversial\n treatise of Macarius Magnes (\u00a7 47, 6) an unnamed pagan\n philosopher is combated whose attacks, chiefly directed\n against the Gospels, to all appearance verbally agree with\n the treatise of Porphyry, or rather, perhaps, with that of\n his plagiarist Hierocles.\n\n (c) =Hierocles= who as governor of Bithynia took an active\n part in the persecution of Galerius, wrote two books\n \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 against the Christians, about A.D. 305,\n which have also perished. Eusebius\u2019 reply refers only\n to his repudiation of the equality assigned to Christ\n and Apollonius of Tyana (\u00a7 24, 1). While the title of\n his treatise is borrowed from that of Celsus, he has also\n according to the testimony of Eusebius in great part copied\n the very words of both of his predecessors.\n\n\n \u00a7 24. Attempted Reconstruction of Paganism.\n\n All its own more thoughtful adherents had long acknowledged that\npaganism must undergo a thorough reform and reconstruction if it were to\ncontinue any longer in existence. In the Augustan Age an effort was made\nto bolster up Neopythagoreanism by means of theurgy and magic. The chief\nrepresentative of this movement was Apollonius of Tyana. In the second\ncentury an attempt was made to revivify the secret rites of the ancient\nmysteries, of Dea Syra, and Mithras. Yet all this was not enough. What\nwas needed was the setting up of a pagan system which would meet the\nreligious cravings of men in the same measure as Christianity with its\nsupernaturalism, monotheism and universalism had done, and would have\nthe absurdities and impurities that had disfigured the popular religion\nstripped off. Such a regeneration of paganism was undertaken in the\nbeginning of the third century by Neoplatonism. But even this was no\nmore able than pagan polemics had been to check the victorious career\nof Christianity.\n\n \u00a7 24.1. =Apollonius of Tyana= in Cappadocia, a contemporary of\n Christ and the Apostles, was a philosopher, ascetic and magician\n esteemed among the people as a worker of miracles. As an earnest\n adherent of the doctrine of Pythagoras, whom he also imitated\n in his dress and manner of life, claiming the possession of the\n gifts of prophecy and miracle working, he assumed the role of a\n moral and religious reformer of the pagan religion of his fathers.\n Accompanied by numerous scholars, teaching and working miracles,\n he travelled through the whole of the then known world until\n he reached the wonderland of India. He settled down at last in\n Ephesus where he died at an advanced age, having at least passed\n his ninety-sixth year. At the wish of the Empress Julia, wife\n of Septimius Severus, in the third century, Philostratus the\n elder composed in the form of a romance in eight books based upon\n written and oral sources, a biography of Apollonius, in which\n he is represented as a heathen counterpart of Christ, who is\n otherwise completely ignored, excelling Him in completeness of\n life, doctrine and miraculous powers.[30]\n\n \u00a7 24.2. In =Neo-platonism=, by the combination of all that was\n noblest and best in the exoteric and esoteric religion, in the\n philosophy, theosophy and theurgy of earlier and later times\n in East and West, we are presented with a universal religion\n in which faith and knowledge, philosophy and theology, theory\n and practice, were so perfectly united and reconciled, and all\n religious needs so fully met, that in comparison with its wealth\n and fulness, the gnosis as well as the faith, the worship and\n the mysteries of the Christians must have seemed one-sided,\n commonplace and incomplete. The first to introduce and commend\n this tendency, which was carried out in three successive schools\n of philosophy, the Alexandrian-Roman, the Syrian and the Athenian,\n was the Alexandrian =Ammonius Saccas=,--this surname being\n derived from his occupation as a porter. He lived and taught in\n Alexandria till about A.D. 250. He sought to combine in a higher\n unity the Platonic and the Aristotelian philosophies, giving\n to the former a normative authority, and he did not hesitate to\n enrich his system by the incorporation of Christian ideas. His\n knowledge of Christianity came from Clement of Alexandria and\n from Origen, whose teacher in philosophy he had been. Porphyry\n indeed affirms that he had previously been himself a Christian,\n but had at a later period of life returned to paganism.--The most\n distinguished of his scholars, and also the most talented and\n profound of all the Neo-platonists, was =Plotinus=, who was in\n A.D. 254 a teacher of philosophy at Rome, and died in A.D. 270.\n His philosophico-theological system in its characteristic features\n is a combination of the Platonic antithesis of the finite world\n of sense and the eternal world of ideas with the stoical doctrine\n of the world soul. The eternal ground of all being is the one\n supramundane, unintelligible and indescribable good (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd), from which all stages of being are radiated forth; first;\n spirit or the world of ideas (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2), the eternal\n type of all being; and then, from this the world soul (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae);\n and from this, finally, the world of phenomena. The outermost\n fringe of this evolution, the forms of which the further they are\n removed from the original ground become more and more imperfect,\n is matter, just as the shadow is the outermost fringe of the\n light. It is conceived of as the finite, the fleeting, even as\n evil in itself. But imperfect as the world of sense is, it is\n nevertheless the vehicle of the ideal world and in many ways\n penetrated by the ideas, and the lighting up imparted by the\n ideas affords it its beauty. In consequence of those rays shining\n in from the realm of ideas, a whole vast hierarchy of divine\n forms has arisen, with countless d\u00e6mons good and bad, which give\n room for the incorporation of all the divine beings of the Greek\n and oriental mythologies. In this way myths that were partly\n immoral and partly fantastic can be rehabilitated as symbolical\n coverings of speculative ideas. The souls of men, too, originate\n from the eternal world soul. By their transition, however, into\n the world of sense they are hampered and fettered by corporeity.\n They themselves complete their redemption through emancipation\n from the bonds of sense by means of asceticism and the practice\n of virtue. In this way they secure a return into the ideal world\n and the vision of the highest good, sometimes as moments of\n ecstatic mystical union with that world, even during this earthly\n life, but an eternally unbroken continuance thereof is only\n attained unto after complete emancipation from all the bonds of\n matter.[31]--Plotinus\u2019 most celebrated scholar, who also wrote\n his life, and collected and arranged his literary remains, was\n =Porphyry=. He also taught in Rome and died there in A.D. 304.\n His \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, a collection of oracular utterances,\n was a positive supplement to his polemic against Christianity\n (\u00a7 23, 3), and afforded to paganism a book of revelation, a\n heathen bible, as Philostratus had before sought to portray a\n heathen saviour. Of greater importance for the development of\n medi\u00e6val scholasticism was his Commentary on the logical works\n of Aristotle, published in several editions of the Aristotelian\n Organon.--His scholar =Iamblichus= of Chalcis in C\u0153le-Syria,\n who died A.D. 333, was the founder of the Syrian school. The\n development which he gave to the Neo-platonic doctrine consisted\n chiefly in the incorporation of a fantastic oriental mythology\n and theurgy. This also brought him the reputation of being a\n magician.--Finally, the Athenian school had in =Proclus=, who\n died in A.D. 485, its most distinguished representative. While\n on the one hand, he proceeded along the path opened by Iamblichus\n to develop vagaries about d\u00e6mons and theurgical fancies, on the\n other hand, he gave to his school an impulse in the direction of\n scholarly and encyclop\u00e6dic culture.--The Neo-platonic speculation\n exercised no small influence on the development of Christian\n philosophy. The philosophizing church fathers, whose darling\n was Plato, got acquaintance with his philosophical views from\n its relatively pure reproduction met with in the works of the\n older Neo-platonists. The influence of their mystico-theosophic\n doctrine, especially as conveyed in the writings of the\n Pseudo-Dionysius (\u00a7 47, 11), is particularly discernible in\n the Christian mysticism of the middle ages, and has been thence\n transmitted to modern times.[32]\n\n\n \u00a7 25. Jewish and Samaritan Reaction.\n\n The Judaism of the Apostolic Age in its most characteristic form was\nthoroughly hostile to Christianity. The Pharisees and the mass of the\npeople with their expectation of a political Messiah, took offence at a\nMessiah crucified by the Gentiles (1 Cor. i. 13); their national pride\nwas wounded by the granting of equality to Samaritans and heathens,\nwhile their legal righteousness and sham piety were exposed and censured\nby the teachings of Christianity. On the other side, the Sadducees felt\nno less called upon to fight to the death against Christianity with its\ndoctrine of the resurrection (Acts iv. 2; xxiii. 6). The same hostile\nfeeling generally prevailed among the dispersion. The Jewish community\nat Berea (Acts xvii. 2) is praised as a pleasing exception to the\ngeneral rule. Finally, in A.D. 70 destruction fell upon the covenant\npeople and the holy city. The Christian church of Jerusalem, acting upon\na warning uttered by the Lord (Matt. xxiv. 16), found a place of refuge\nin the mountain city of Pella, on the other side of Jordan. But when\nthe Pseudo-Messiah, Bar-Cochba (Son of a Star, Num. xxiv. 17), roused\nall Palestine against the Roman rule, in A.D. 132, the Palestinian\nChristians who refused to assist or recognise the false Messiah,\nhad again to endure a bloody persecution. Bar-Cochba was defeated in\nA.D. 135. Hadrian now commanded that upon pain of death no Jew should\nenter \u00c6lia Capitolina, the Roman colony founded by him on the ruins\nof Jerusalem. From that time they were deprived of all power and\nopportunity for direct persecution of the Christians. All the greater\nwas their pleasure at the persecutions by the heathens and their zeal\nin urging the pagans to extreme measures. In their seminaries they gave\ncurrency to the most horrible lies and calumnies about Christ and the\nChristians, which also issued thence among the heathens. On the other\nhand, however, they intensified their own anti-Christian attitude\nand sought protection against the advancing tide of Christianity\nby strangling all spiritual movement under a mass of traditional\ninterpretations and judgments of men. The Schools of Tiberias and\nBabylon were the nurseries of this movement, and the _Talmud_, the first\npart of which, the _Mishna_, had its origin during this period, marks\nthe completion of this anti-Christian self-petrifaction of Judaism. The\ndisciples of John, too, assumed a hostile attitude toward Christianity,\nand formed a distinct set under the name of Hemerobaptists.\nContemporaneously with the first successes of the Apostolic mission, a\ncurrent set in among the Samaritans calculated to checkmate Christianity\nby the setting up of new religions. Dositheus, Simon Magus and Menander\nhere made their appearance with claims to the Messiahship, and were at a\nlater period designated heresiarchs by the church fathers, who believed\nthat in them they found the germs of the Gnostic heresy (\u00a7\u00a7 26 ff.).\n\n \u00a7 25.1. =Disciples of John.=--Even after their master had been\n beheaded the disciples of John the Baptist maintained a separate\n society of their own, and reproached the disciples of Jesus\n because of their want of strict ascetic discipline (Matt. ix. 14,\n etc.). The disciples of John in the Acts (xviii. 25; xix. 1-7)\n were probably Hellenist Jews, who on their visits to the feasts\n had been pointed by John to Christ, announced by him as Messiah,\n without having any information as to the further developments of\n the Christian community. About the middle of the second century,\n however, the Clementine Homilies (\u00a7 28, 3), in which John the\n Baptist is designated a \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, speaks of gnosticizing\n disciples of John, who may be identical with the =Hemerobaptists=,\n that is, those who practise baptism daily, of Eusebius (_Hist.\n Eccl._, iv. 22). They originated probably from a coalition of\n Essenes (\u00a7 8, 4) and disciples of the Baptist who when orphaned\n by the death of John persistently refused to join the disciples\n of Christ.--We hear no more of them till the Carmelite missionary\n John a Jesu in Persia came upon a sect erroneously called\n Christians of St. John or Nazoreans.[33] Authentic information\n about the doctrine, worship and constitution of this sect that\n still numbers some hundred families, was first obtained in the\n 19th century by an examination of their very comprehensive sacred\n literature, written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to that of\n the Babylonian Talmud. The most important of those writings the\n so-called Great Book (_Sidra rabba_), also called _Ginza_, that\n is, thesaurus, has been faithfully reproduced by Petermann under\n the title _Thesaurus s. Liber magnus_, etc., 2 vols., Berl.,\n 1867.--Among themselves the adherents of this sect were styled\n =Mand\u00e6ans=, after one of their numerous divine beings or \u00e6ons,\n _Manda de chaje_, meaning \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2. In their extremely\n complicated religious system, resembling in many respects the\n Ophite Gnosis (\u00a7 27, 6) and Manicheism (\u00a7 29), this \u00c6on takes the\n place of the heavenly mediator in the salvation of the earthly\n world. Among those without, however, they called themselves\n Subba, =Sabeans= from \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0 or \u05e6\u05d1\u05e2 to baptize. Although they\n cannot be identified right off with the Disciples of John and\n Hemerobaptists, a historical connection between them, carrying\n with it gnostic and oriental-heathen influences, is highly\n probable. The name Sabean itself suggests this, but still more\n the position they assign to John the Baptist as the only true\n prophet over against Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. As\n adherents of John the Baptist rejected by the Jews the old\n Disciples of John had an anti-Jewish character, and by their\n own rejection of Christ an anti-Christian character. By shifting\n their residence to Babylon, however, they became so dependent\n on the Syro-Chaldean mythology, theosophy and theurgy, that they\n sank completely into paganism, and so their opposition to Judaism\n and Christianity increased into fanatical hatred and horrid\n calumniation.[34]\n\n \u00a7 25.2. =The Samaritan Heresiarchs.=\n\n (a) =Dositheus= was according to Origen a contemporary of\n Jesus and the Apostles, and gave himself out as the\n prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 18. He insisted upon a\n curiously strict observance of the Sabbath, and according\n to Epiphanius he perished miserably in a cave in consequence\n of an ostentatiously prolonged fast. Purely fabulous are\n the stories of the Pseudo-Clementine writings (\u00a7 28, 3)\n which bring him into contact with John the Baptist as his\n scholar and successor, and with Simon Magus as his defeated\n rival. More credible is the account of an Arabic-Samaritan\n Chronicle,[35] according to which the sect of the\n Dostanians at the time of Simon Maccab\u00e6us traced their\n descent from a Samaritan tribe, while also the Catholic\n heresiologies (\u00a7 26, 4) reckon the Dositheans among the\n pre-Christian sects. According to a statement of Eulogius\n of Alexandria recorded by Photius, the Dositheans and\n Samaritans in Egypt in A.D. 588 disputed as to the meaning\n of Deut. xviii. 18.\n\n (b) =Simon Magus=, born, according to Justin Martyr, at Gitta\n in Samaria, appeared in his native country as a soothsayer\n with such success that the infatuated people hailed him as\n the \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7. When Philip the\n Deacon preached the gospel in Samaria, Simon also received\n baptism from him, but was sternly denounced by Peter from\n whom he wished to buy the gift of communicating the Spirit\n (Acts viii). As to the identity of this man with Simon\n the Magician, according to Josephus hailing from Cyprus,\n who induced the Herodian Drusilla to quit her husband and\n become the wife of the Governor Felix (Acts xxiv. 24), it\n can scarcely claim to be more than a probability. A vast\n collection of fabulous legends soon grew up around the\n name of Simon Magus, not only from the Gentile-Christian\n and Catholic side, but also from the Jewish-Christian and\n heretical side; the latter to be still met with in the\n _Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions_, while in the\n _Acta Petri et Pauli_, we have the Catholic revision and\n reproduction of the no longer extant Ebionistic _Acts of\n Peter_ (\u00a7 32, 6). These Judaizing heretics particularly\n amused themselves by making a very slightly veiled\n vile caricature of the great Apostle of the Gentiles by\n transferring to the name of the magician many distorted\n representations of occurrences in the life and works of the\n Apostle Paul. This representation, however, was recognised\n in the Acts above referred to and by the church fathers\n as originally descriptive of Simon Magus. On the basis of\n this legendary conglomerate Iren\u00e6us, after the example of\n Justin, describes him as _Magister ac progenitor omnium\n h\u00e6reticorum_. From a house of ill fame in Tyre he bought\n a slave girl Helena, to whom he assigned the role of the\n world creating \u1f1c\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 of God. The angels born of her for\n the purpose of creating the world had rebelled against her;\n she was enslaved, and was imprisoned, sometimes in this,\n sometimes in that, human body; at one time in the body of\n Helen of Troy, and at last in that of the Tyrian prostitute.\n In order to redeem her and with her the world enslaved by\n the rebel angels, the supreme God (\u1f41 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ce\u03c2) Himself came\n down and assumed the form of man, was born unbegotten of\n man, suffered in appearance in Judea, and reveals Himself\n to the Samaritans as Father, to the Jews as Son, and to the\n Gentiles as the Holy Spirit. The salvation of man consists\n simply in acknowledging Simon and his Helena as the supreme\n gods. By faith only, not by works, is man justified. The\n law originated with the evil angels and was devised by them\n merely to keep men in bondage under them. This last point\n is evidently transferred to the magician partly from the\n Apostle Paul, partly from Marcion (\u00a7 27, 11), and is copied\n from Ebionite sources. The Simon myth is specially rich in\n legends about the magician\u2019s residence in Rome, to which\n place he had betaken himself after being often defeated\n in disputation by the Apostle Peter, and where he was so\n successful that the Romans erected a column in his honour\n on an island in the Tiber, which Justin Martyr himself is\n said to have seen, bearing the inscription: _Simoni sancto\n Deo_. The discovery in A.D. 1574 of the column dedicated\n to the Sabine god of oaths, inscribed \u201c_Semoni Sanco Deo\n Fidio_,\u201d explains how such a legend may have arisen out\n of a misunderstanding. Although by a successful piece of\n jugglery--decapitation and rising again the third day,\n having substituted for himself a goat whom he had bewitched\n to assume his appearance, whose head was cut off--he won\n the special favour of Nero, he was thereafter in public\n disputation before the emperor unmasked by Peter. In order\n to rehabilitate himself he offered to prove his divine\n power by ascending up into heaven. For this purpose he\n mounted a high tower. Peter adjured the angel of Satan,\n which carried him through the air, and the magician\n fell with a crash to the ground. Probably there is here\n transferred to one magician what is told by Suetonius\n (_Nero_, xii.) and Juvenal (_Sat._ iii. 79 ff.) as\n happening to a soothsayer in Nero\u2019s time who made an\n attempt to fly. The school of Baur (\u00a7 182, 7), after Baur\n himself had discovered in the Simon Magus of the Clementine\n Homilies a caricature of the Apostle Paul, has come to\n question the existence of the magician altogether, and\n has attempted to account for the myth as originating from\n the hatred of the Jewish Christians to the Apostle of the\n Gentiles. Support for this view is sought from Acts viii.,\n the offering of money by the magician being regarded as a\n maliciously distorted account of the contribution conveyed\n by Paul to the church at Jerusalem.[36] Recently, however,\n Hilgenfeld, who previously maintained this view, has again\n recognised as well grounded the tradition of the Church\n Fathers, that Simon was the real author of the \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and has carried out this idea in his\n \u201cKetzergeschichte.\u201d\n\n (c) =Menander= was, according to Justin Martyr, a disciple of\n Simon. Subsequently he undertook to play the part of the\n Saviour of the world. In doing so, however, he was always,\n as Iren\u00e6us remarks, modest enough not to give himself out\n as the supreme god, but only as the Messiah sent by Him.\n He taught, however, that any one who should receive his\n baptism would never become old or die.[37]\n\n\n\n\n II. DANGER TO THE CHURCH FROM PAGAN AND JEWISH\n ELEMENTS WITHIN ITS OWN PALE.\n\n\n \u00a7 26. GNOSTICISM IN GENERAL.[38]\n\n The Judaism and paganism imported into the church proved more\ndangerous to it than the storm of persecution raging against it from\nwithout. Ebionism (\u00a7 28) was the result of the attempt to incorporate\ninto Christianity the narrow particularism of Judaism; Heretical Gnosis\nor Gnosticism was the result of the attempt to blend with Christianity\nthe religious notions of pagan mythology, mysteriology, theosophy and\nphilosophy. These two tendencies, moreover, were combined in a Gnostic\nEbionism, in the direction of which Essenism may be regarded as a\ntransitional stage (\u00a7 8, 4). In many respects Manich\u00e6ism (\u00a7 29), which\nsprang up at a later period, is related to the Gnosticism of Gentile\nChristianity, but also in character and tendency widely different from\nit. The church had to employ all her powers to preserve herself from\nthis medley of religious fancies and to purify her fields from the\nweeds that were being sown on every side. In regard to Ebionism and\nits gnosticizing developments this was a comparatively easy task. The\nGnosticism of Gentile Christianity was much more difficult to deal with,\nand although the church succeeded in overcoming the weed in her fields,\nyet many of its seeds continued hidden for centuries, from which sprouts\ngrew up now and again quite unexpectedly (\u00a7\u00a7 54, 71, 108). This struggle\nhas nevertheless led to the furtherance of the church in many ways,\nawakening in it a sense of scientific requirements, stirring it up\nto more vigorous battling for the truth, and endowing it with a more\ngenerous and liberal spirit. It had learnt to put a Christian gnosis in\nthe place of the heretical, a right and wholesome use of speculation and\nphilosophy, of poetry and art, in place of their misuse, and thus\nenabled Christianity to realise its universal destination.\n\n \u00a7 26.1. =Gnosticism= was deeply rooted in a powerful and\n characteristic intellectual tendency of the first century. A\n persistent conviction that the ancient world had exhausted itself\n and was no longer able to resist its threatened overthrow, now\n prevailed and drove the deepest thinkers to adopt the boldest and\n grandest Syncretism the world has ever beheld, in the blending of\n all the previously isolated and heterogeneous elements of culture\n as a final attempt at the rejuvenating of that which had become\n old (\u00a7 25). Even within the borders of the church this Syncretism\n favoured by the prevailing spirit of the age influenced those of\n superior culture, to whom the church doctrine of that age did not\n seem to make enough of theosophical principles and speculative\n thought, while the worship of the church seemed dry and barren.\n Out of the fusing of cosmological myths and philosophemes of\n oriental and Greek paganism with Christian historical elements in\n the crucible of its own speculation, there arose numerous systems\n of a higher fantastic sort of religious philosophy, which were\n included under the common name of Gnosticism. The pagan element\n is upon the whole the prevailing one, inasmuch as in most Gnostic\n systems Christianity is not represented as the conclusion and\n completion of the development of salvation given in the Old\n Testament, but often merely as the continuation and climax of\n the pagan religion of nature and the pagan mystery worship.\n The attitude of this heretical gnosis toward holy scripture was\n various. By means of allegorical interpretation some endeavoured\n to prove their system from it; others preferred to depreciate the\n Apostles as falsifiers of the original purely gnostic doctrine\n of Christ, or to remodel the apostolic writings in accordance\n with their own views, or even to produce a bible of their own\n after the principles of their own schools in the form of gnostic\n pseudepigraphs. With them, however, for the most part the\n tradition of ancient wisdom as the communicated secret doctrine\n stood higher than holy scripture. Over against the heretical\n gnosis, an ecclesiastical gnosis was developed, especially in the\n Alexandrian school of theology (Clement and Origen, \u00a7 31, 4, 5),\n which, according to 1 Cor. xii. 8, 9; xiii. 2, was esteemed\n and striven after as, in contradistinction to faith, a higher\n stage in the development of the religious consciousness. The\n essential distinction between the two consisted in this, that\n the latter was determined, inspired and governed by the believing\n consciousness of the universal church, as gradually formulated in\n the church confession, whereas the former, completely emancipated\n therefrom, disported itself in the unrestricted arbitrariness of\n fantastic speculation.\n\n \u00a7 26.2. =The Problems of Gnostic Speculation= are: the origin\n of the world and of evil, as well as the task, means and end of\n the world\u2019s development. In solving these problems the Gnostics\n borrowed mostly from paganism the theory of the world\u2019s origin,\n and from Christianity the idea of redemption. At the basis\n of almost all Gnostic systems there lies the dualism of God\n and matter (\u1f55\u03bb\u03b7); only that matter is regarded sometimes in a\n Platonic sense as non-essential and non-substantial (=\u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd)\n and hence without hostile opposition to the godhead, sometimes\n more in the Parsee sense as inspired and dominated by an evil\n principle, and hence in violent opposition to the good God.\n In working out the theosophical and cosmological process it is\n mainly the idea of emanation (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae) that is called into play,\n whereby from the hidden God is derived a long series of divine\n essences (\u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2), whose inherent divine power diminishes in\n proportion as they are removed to a distance from the original\n source of being. These \u00e6ons then make their appearance as\n intermediaries in the creation, development and redemption of the\n world. The substratum out of which the world is created consists\n in a mixture of the elements of the world of light (\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1)\n with the elements of matter (\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1) by means of nature, chance\n or conflict. One of the least and weakest of the \u00e6ons, who is\n usually designated \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, after the example of Plato in\n the _Tim\u00e6us_, is brought forward as the creator of the world.\n Creation is the first step toward redemption. But the Demiurge\n cannot or will not carry it out, and so finally there appears in\n the fulness of the times one of the highest \u00e6ons as redeemer, in\n order to secure perfect emancipation to the imprisoned elements\n of light by the communication of the \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Seeing that matter\n is derived from the evil, he appears in a seeming body or at\n baptism identifies himself with the psychical Messiah sent by\n the Demiurge. The death on the cross is either only an optical\n illusion, or the heavenly Christ, returning to the pleroma,\n quits the man Jesus, or gives His form to some other man\n (Simon of Cyrene, Matt. xxvii. 32) so that he is crucified\n instead of Him (Docetism). The souls of men, according as the\n pleromatic or hylic predominates in them, are in their nature,\n either _Pneumatic_, which alone are capable of the \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, or\n _Psychical_, which can only aspire to \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, or finally, _Hylic_\n (\u03c7\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af), to which class the great majority belongs,\n which, subject to Satanic influences, serve only their lower\n desires. Redemption consists in the conquest and exclusion\n of matter, and is accomplished through knowledge (\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) and\n asceticism. It is therefore a chemical, rather than an ethical\n process. Seeing that the original seat of evil is in matter,\n sanctification is driven from the ethical domain into the\n physical, and consists in battling with matter and withholding\n from material enjoyments. The Gnostics were thus originally very\n strict in their moral discipline, but often they rushed to the\n other extreme, to libertinism and antinomianism, in consequence\n partly of the depreciation of the law of the Demiurge, partly\n of the tendency to rebound from one extreme to the other, and\n justified their conduct on the ground of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af.\n\n \u00a7 26.3. =Distribution.=--_Gieseler_ groups the Gentile Christian\n Gnostics according to their native countries into Egyptian or\n Alexandrian, whose emanationist and dualistic theories were\n coloured by Platonism, and the Syrian, whose views were affected\n by Parseeism.--_Neander_ divides Gnostic systems into Judaistic\n and Anti-Jewish, subdividing the latter into such as incline to\n Paganism, and such as strive to apprehend Christianity in its\n purity and simplicity.--_Hase_ arranges them as Oriental, Greek\n and Christian.--_Baur_ classifies the Gnostic systems as those\n which endeavour to combine Judaism and paganism with Christianity,\n and those which oppose Christianity to these.--_Lipsius_ marks\n three stages in the development of Gnosticism: the blending\n of Asiatic myths with a Jewish and Christian basis which took\n place in Syria; the further addition to this of Greek philosophy\n either Stoicism or Platonism which was carried out in Egypt;\n and recurrence to the ethical principles of Christianity, the\n elevation of \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 above \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.--_Hilgenfeld_ arranges his\n discussion of these systems in accordance with their place in\n the early heresiologies.--But none of these arrangements can\n be regarded as in every respect satisfactory, and indeed it\n may be impossible to lay down any principle of distribution of\n such a kind. There are so many fundamental elements and these\n of so diverse a character, that no one scheme of division\n may suffice for an adequate classification of all Gnostic\n systems. The difficulty was further enhanced by the contradiction,\n approximation, and confusion of systems, and by their\n construction and reconstruction, of which Rome as the capital\n of the world was the great centre.\n\n \u00a7 26.4. =Sources of Information.=--Abundant as the literary\n productions were which assumed the name or else without the name\n developed the principles of Gnosticism, comparatively little of\n this literature has been preserved. We are thus mainly dependent\n upon the representations of its catholic opponents, and to them\n also we owe the preservation of many authentic fragments. The\n first church teacher who _ex professo_ deals with Gnosticism is\n Justin Martyr (\u00a7 30, 9), whose controversial treatise, however,\n as well as that of Hegesippus (\u00a7 31, 7), has been lost. The most\n important of extant treatises of this kind are those of Iren\u00e6us\n in five books _Adv. h\u00e6reses_, and of Hippolytus \u1f1c\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, the so-called _Philosophoumena_ (\u00a7 31, 3). The\n \u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba. \u03c0. \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1. of Hippolytus is no longer extant in the\n original; a Latin translation of it apparently exists in the\n _Libellus adv. omnes h\u00e6reses_, which has been attributed to\n Tertullian. Together with the work of Iren\u00e6us, it formed a\n query for the later heresiologists, Epiphanius and Philaster\n (\u00a7 47, 10, 14), who were apparently unacquainted with the later\n written but more important and complete _Elenchus_. Besides these\n should be mentioned the writings of Tertullian (\u00a7 31, 10) and\n Theodoret (\u00a7 47, 9) referring to this controversy, the _Stromata_\n of Clement of Alexandria, and the published discussions of Origen\n (\u00a7 31, 4, 5), especially in his Commentary on John, also the five\n Dialogues of the Pseudo-Origen (Adamantius) against the Gnostics\n from the beginning of the fourth century;[39] and finally many\n notices in the Church History of Eusebius. The still extant\n fragments of the Gnostic Apocryphal historian of the Apostles\n afford information about the teaching and forms of worship of\n the later syncretic vulgar Gnosticism, and also from the very\n defective representations of them in the works of their Catholic\n opponents.\n\n\n \u00a7 27. THE GENTILE CHRISTIAN GNOSTICISM.\n\n In the older heretical Gnosticism (\u00a7 18, 3), Jewish, pagan,\nand Christian elements are found, which are kept distinct, or are\namalgamated or after examination are rejected, what remains being\ndeveloped, consolidated and distributed, but in a confused blending.\nThis is the case with Cerinthus. In Basilides again, who attaches\nhimself to the doctrines of Stoicism, we have Gnosticism developed under\nthe influence of Alexandrian culture; and soon thereafter in Valentinus,\nwho builds on Plato\u2019s philosophy, it attains its richest, most profound\nand noblest expression. From the blending of Syro-Chald\u00e6an mythology\nwith Greek and Hellenistic-Gnostic theories issue the divers Ophite\nsystems. Antinomian Gnosticism with loose practical morality was an\noutgrowth from the contempt shown to the Jewish God that created the\nworld and gave the law. The genuinely Syrian Gnosticism with its\nParseeist-dualistic ruggedness was most purely represented by Saturninus,\nwhile in Marcion and his scholars the exaggeration of the Pauline\nopposition of law and grace led to a dualistic contrast of the God of\nthe Old Testament and of the New. From the middle of the second century\nonwards there appears in the historical development of Gnosticism an\never-increasing tendency to come to terms with the doctrine of the\nchurch. This is shown by the founders of new sects, Marcion, Tatian,\nHermogenes; and also by many elaborators of early systems, by Heracleon,\nPtolom\u00e6us and Bardesanes who developed the Valentinian system, in the\nso-called Pistis Sophia, as the exposition of the Ophite system. This\ntendency to seek reconciliation with the church is also shown in a\nkind of syncretic popular or vulgar Gnosticism which sought to attach\nitself more closely to the church by the composition of apocryphal\nand pseudepigraphic Gospels and Acts of Apostles under biblical names\nand dates (\u00a7 32, 4-6).--The most brilliant period in the history of\nGnosticism was the second century, commencing with the age of Hadrian.\nAt the beginning of the third century there was scarcely one of the\nmore cultured congregations throughout the whole of the Roman empire and\nbeyond this as far as Edessa, that was not affected by it. Yet we never\nfind the numbers of regular Gnostic congregations exceeding that of the\nCatholic. Soon thereafter the season of decay set in. Its productive\npower was exhausted, and while, on the one side, it was driven back by\nthe Catholic ecclesiastical reaction, on the other hand, in respect of\ncongregational organization it was outrun and outbidden by Manich\u00e6ism,\nand also by Marcionism.\n\n \u00a7 27.1. =Cerinthus=, as Iren\u00e6us says, resting on the testimony\n of Polycarp, was a younger contemporary of the Apostle John in\n Asia Minor; the Apostle meeting the heretic in a bath hastened\n out lest the building should fall upon the enemy of the truth.\n In his Gnosticism, resting according to Hippolytus on a basis\n of Alexandrian-Greek culture, we have the transition from the\n Jewish-Christian to a more Gentile than Jewish-Christian Gnostic\n standpoint. The continued hold of the former is seen according\n to Epiphanius in the maintaining of the necessity of circumcision\n and of the observances by Christians of the law given by\n disposition of angels, as also, according to Caius of Rome, who\n regards him as the author of the New Testament Apocalypse, in\n chiliastic expectations. Both of these, however, were probably\n intended only in the allegorical and spiritual sense. At the\n same time, according to Iren\u00e6us and Theodoret, the essentially\n Gnostic figure of the Demiurge already appears in his writings,\n who without knowing the supreme God is yet useful to Him as\n the creator of the world. Even Jesus, the son of Joseph and\n Mary, knew him not, until the \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 descended upon him at\n his baptism. Before the crucifixion, which was a merely human\n mischance without any redemptive significance, the Christ had\n again withdrawn from him.\n\n \u00a7 27.2. =The Gnosticism of Basilides.=--=Basilides= (\u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2)\n was a teacher in Alexandria about A.D. 120-130. He pretends to\n derive the gnostic system from the notes of the esoteric teaching\n of Christ taken down by the Apostle Matthew and an amanuensis\n of Peter called Glaucias. He also made use of John\u2019s Gospel and\n Paul\u2019s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians and Ephesians. He\n himself left behind 24 books \u1f18\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac and his equally talented\n son Isidorus has left a treatise under the title \u1f28\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac. Fragments\n of both are found in Clement of Alexandria, two passages from\n the first are given also in the \u201cActs of Disputation,\u201d by\n Archelaus of Cascar (\u00a7 29, 1). Iren\u00e6us, i. 24, who refers to him\n as a disciple of Menander (\u00a7 25, 2), and the Pseudo-Tertullian,\n c. 41, Epiphanius, 21, and Theodoret, i. 4, describe his system\n as grossly dualistic and decidedly emanationist. Hippolytus,\n vii. 14 ff., on the other hand, with whom Clement seems\n to agree, describes it as a thoroughly monistic system, in\n which the theogony is developed not by emanation from above\n downwards but by evolution from below upwards. This latter view\n which undoubtedly presents this system in a more favourable\n light,--according to Baur, Uhlhorn, Jacobi, M\u00f6ller, Funk, etc.,\n its original form: according to Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Volkmar,\n etc., a later form influenced by later interpolations of Greek\n pantheistic ideas,--makes the development of God and the world\n begin with pure nothing: \u1f26\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f26\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd. The principle of all\n development is \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f62\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, who out of Himself (\u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd)\n calls chaos into being. This chaos was still itself an \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd,\n but yet also the \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 upon which now the \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f62\u03bd\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 as \u1f00\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 operated attractively by his beauty. The\n pneumatic element in the newly created chaos is represented in a\n threefold sonship (\u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c2) of which the first and most\n perfect immediately after creation with the swiftness of thought\n takes its flight to the happy realm of non-existence, the Pleroma.\n The second less perfect sonship struggles after the first (hence\n called, \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae), but must, on reaching the borders of the\n happy realm, cast aside the less perfect part of its being, which\n now as the Holy Spirit (\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1) forms the vestibule\n (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1) or boundary line between the Pleroma (\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1)\n and the cosmos, and although severed from the sonship, still,\n like a vessel out of which sweet ointment has been taken, it\n bears to this lower world some of the perfume adhering to it.\n The third sonship being in need of purifying must still remain in\n the Panspermia, and is as such the subject of future redemption.\n On the other hand, the greatest archon as the most complete\n concentration of all wisdom, might and glory which was found\n in the psychical elements of chaos, flew up to the firmament as\n \u1f00\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. He now fancied himself to be the Supreme God\n and ruler of all things, and begot a son, who according to the\n predetermination of the non-existing excelled him in insight and\n wisdom. For himself and Son, having with them besides six other\n unnamed principalities, he founded the higher heavens, the so-\n called Ogdoas. After him there arose of chaos a second inferior\n Archon with the predicate \u1f04\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, who likewise begat a son\n mightier than himself, and founded a lower heavenly realm,\n the so-called Hebdomas, the planetary heavens. The rest of the\n Panspermia was the developed \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, that is, in accordance\n with the natural principle implanted in it by the non-existent\n \u201cat our stage\u201d (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2). As the time drew near\n for the manifestation of the children of God, that is, of men\n whose pneumatical endowment was derived from the third sonship,\n the son of the great Archon through the mediation of the \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 first devised the saving plan of the Pleroma. With fear\n and trembling now the great Archon too acknowledged his error,\n repented of this self-exaltation and with the whole Ogdoas\n rejoiced in the scheme of salvation. Through him also the son of\n the second Archon is enlightened, and he instructs his father,\n who now as the God of the Old Testament prepares the way for the\n development of salvation by the law and prophecy. The beginning\n is made by Jesus, son of the virgin Mary, who first himself\n absorbed the ray of the higher light, and as \u201cthe firstborn\n of the children of God\u201d became also the Saviour (\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1) of\n his brethren. His sufferings were necessary for removing the\n psychical and somatical elements of the Panspermia adhering to\n him. They were therefore actual, not mere seeming sufferings. His\n bodily part returned to the formlessness out of which it sprang;\n his psychical part arose from the grave, but in his ascension\n returned into the Hebdomas, while his pneumatic being belonging\n to the third sonship went up to the happy seat of the \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f62\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2.\n And as he, the firstborn, so also all the children of God, have\n afterwards to perform their task of securing the highest possible\n development and perfection of the groaning creation (Rom. viii.\n 19), that is, of all souls which by their nature are eternally\n bound \u201cto our stage.\u201d Then finally, God will pour over all\n ranks of being beginning from the lowest the great ignorance\n (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd) so that no one may be disturbed in their\n blessedness by the knowledge of a higher. Thus the restitution of\n all things is accomplished.--The mild spirit which pervades this\n dogmatic system preserved from extravagances of a rigoristic or\n libertine sort the ethical system resulting from it. Marriage was\n honoured and regarded as holy, though celibacy was admitted to be\n helpful in freeing the soul from the thraldom of fleshly lusts.\n\n \u00a7 27.3. The system set forth by Iren\u00e6us and others, as that of\n Basilides, represents the Supreme God as _Pater innatus_ or \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f04\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. From him emanates the \u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, from this again the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2,\n from this the \u03a6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, who brings forth \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 and \u0394\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2. From\n the two last named spring the \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, \u1f18\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 and \u1f0c\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, who\n with number seven of the higher gods, the primal father, at their\n head, constitute the highest heaven. From this as its \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n radiates forth a second spiritual world, and the emanation\n continues in this way, until it is completed and exhausts itself\n in the number of 365 spiritual worlds or heavens under the mystic\n name \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03ac\u03c2 or \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03be which has in its letters the numerical\n value referred to. This last and most imperfect of these\n spiritual worlds with its seven planet spirits forms the heaven\n visible to us. Through this three hundred and sixty-five times\n repeated emanation the Pleroma approaches the borders of the hyle,\n a seething mass of forces wildly tossing against one another.\n These rush wildly against it, snatch from it fragments of light\n and imprison them in matter. From this mixture the Archon of the\n lowest heaven in fellowship with his companions creates the earth,\n and to each of them apportions by lot a nation, reserving to\n himself the Jewish nation which he seeks to raise above all other\n nations, and so introduces envy and ambition into heaven, and\n war and bloodshed upon earth. Finally, the Supreme God sends his\n First-born, the \u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, in order to deliver men from the power of\n the angel that created the world. He assumes the appearance of a\n body, and does many miracles. The Jews determined upon his death;\n nevertheless they crucified instead of him Simon the Cyrenian,\n who assumed his shape. He himself returned to his Father. By\n means of the Gnosis which he taught men\u2019s souls are redeemed,\n while their bodies perish.--The development of one of these\n systems into the other might be most simply explained by assuming\n that the one described in the _Elenchus_ of Hippolytus is the\n original and that its reconstruction was brought about by the\n overpowering intrusion of current dualistic, emanationistic,\n and docetic ideas. All that had there been said about the great\n Archon must now be attributed to the Supreme God, the _Pater\n innatus_, while the inferior archon might keep his place as ruler\n of the lowest planetary heaven. The 365 spiritual worlds had\n perhaps in the other system a place between the two Archons, for\n even Hippolytus, vii. 26, mentions in addition the 365 heavens\n to which also he gives the name of the great Archon Abrasax.--It\n is a fact of special importance that even Iren\u00e6us and Epiphanius\n distinguish from the genuine disciples of Basilides the so-called\n =Pseudo-Basilideans= as representing a later development, easily\n deducible from the second but hardly traceable from the first\n account of the system. That with their Gnosis they blended magic,\n witchcraft and fantastic superstition appears from the importance\n which they attached to mystic numbers and letters. Their\n libertine practice can be derived from their antinomian contempt\n of Judaism as well as from the theory that their bodies are\n doomed to perish. So, too, their axiom that to suffer martyrdom\n for the crucified, who was not indeed the real Christ, is foolish,\n may be deduced from the Docetism of their system. Abrasax gems\n which are still to be met with in great numbers and in great\n variety are to be attributed to these Basilideans; but these\n found favour and were used as talismans not only among other\n Gnostic sects but also among the Alchymists of the Middle Ages.\n\n \u00a7 27.4. =Valentinian Gnosticism.=--=Valentinus=, the most\n profound, talented and imaginative of all the Gnostics, was\n educated in Alexandria, and went to Rome about A.D. 140, where,\n during a residence of more than twenty years, he presided over an\n influential school, and exercised also a powerful influence upon\n other systems. He drew the materials for his system partly from\n holy scripture, especially from the Gospel of John, partly from\n the esoteric doctrine of a pretended disciple of Paul, Theodades.\n Of his own voluminous writings, in the form of discourses,\n epistles and poems, only a few fragments are extant. The\n reporters of his teaching, Iren\u00e6us, Hippolytus, Tertullian,\n Epiphanius, differ greatly from one another in details, and leave\n us in doubt as to what really belongs to his own doctrine and\n what to its development by his disciples--The fundamental idea of\n his system rests on the notion that according to a law founded in\n the depths of the divine nature the \u00e6ons by emanation come into\n being as pairs, male and female. The pairing of these \u00e6ons in\n a holy marriage is called a Syzygy. With this is joined another\n characteristic notion, that in the historical development of\n the Pleroma the original types of the three great crises of the\n earthly history, Creation, the Fall, and Redemption, are met with.\n On the basis of this he develops the most magnificently poetic\n epic of a Christian mythological Theogony and Cosmogony. From the\n \u0392\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 or \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 and its \u1f1c\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 or \u03a3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae, evolving his thought\n hitherto only in silent contemplation of his own perfection,\n emanates the first and highest pair of \u00e6ons, the \u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 or\n \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 who alone of all \u00e6ons can bear to look into the depths\n of the perfection of the Father of all, and beside him his bride\n \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. From them spring the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 and \u0396\u03c9\u03ae as the second pair,\n and from this pair again \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 as the third pair.\n The \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 and his Ennoia, with the first and highest pair\n of \u00e6ons emanating for them, and these together with the second\n Tetras, form the Ogdoas. The Logos then begets a further removed\n circle of five pairs, the Decas, and finally the Anthropos begets\n the last series of six pairs, the Dodecas. Therewith the =Pleroma=\n attains a preliminary completion. A final boundary is fixed for\n it by the \u1f4d\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 emanating from the Father of all, who, being alone\n raised above the operation of the law of the Syzygy, is endowed\n with a twofold \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, an \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, by means of\n which he wards off all from without that would hurt, and an\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, the symbol of which is the cross, with which\n he maintains inward harmony and order. How necessary this was is\n soon made apparent. For the \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, the last and least member of\n the fourteen \u00e6on pairs, impelled by burning desire, tears herself\n away from her partner, and seeks to plunge into the Bythos\n in order to embrace the Father of All himself. She is indeed\n prevented from this by the Horos; but the breach in the Pleroma\n has been made. In order to restore the harmony that has thus been\n broken, the Monogenes begets with Aletheia a new \u00e6on pair, the\n \u1f0c\u03bd\u03c9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 and the \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd which emancipates the Sophia\n from her disorderly, passionate nature (\u1f18\u03bd\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), cuts out this\n latter from the Pleroma, but unites again the purified Sophia\n with her husband, and teaches all the \u00e6ons about the Father\u2019s\n unapproachable and incomprehensible essence, and about the reason\n and end of the Syzygies. Then they all, amid hymns of praise\n and thanksgiving, present an offering to the Father, each one of\n the best that he has, and form thereof an indescribably glorious\n \u00e6on-being, the \u1f0c\u03bd\u03c9 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, and for his service myriads of august\n angels, who bow in worship before him.--The basis for the\n origination of the =sensible world=, the \u1f59\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, consist of\n the Enthymesis ejected from the Pleroma into the desert, void\n and substanceless Kenoma, which is by it for the first time\n filled and vitalized. It is an \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, an abortion, which however\n retains still the \u00e6on nature of its divine present, and as such\n bears the name of \u1f1c\u03be\u03c9 (\u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9) \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 or \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03b8 (\u05d4\u05b7\u05d7\u05b8\u05db\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea). Hence even\n the blessed spirits of the Pleroma can never forsake her. They\n all suffer with the unfortunate, until she who had sprung from\n the Pleroma is restored to it purified and matured. Hence they\n espouse her, the Ektroma of the last and least of the \u00e6ons, to\n the Ano-Soter, the noblest, most glorious and most perfect being\n in the \u00e6on-heaven, as her redeemer and future husband. He begins\n by comforting the despondent and casting out from her the baser\n affections. Among the worst, fear, sorrow, doubt, etc., is found\n the basis of the hylic stage of existence; among the better,\n repentance, desire, hope, etc., that of the psychic stage of\n existence (\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2). Over the beings issuing forth from the former\n presides Satan; over the psychical forms of being, as their\n highest development, presides the Demiurge, who prepares as\n his dwelling-place the seven lower heavens, the Hebdomas.\n But Achamoth had retired with the pneumatic substratum still\n remaining in her into the \u03a4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, between the\n Pleroma and the lower world, whence she, inspired by the\n Ano-Soter, operates upon the Demiurge, who, knowing nothing of\n her existence, has no anticipation thereof. From the dust of the\n earth and pneumatic seed, which unobserved she conveys into it,\n he formed man, breathed into him his own psychical breath of\n life, and set him in paradise, that is, in the third of his seven\n heavens, but banished him to earth, when he disobeyed his command,\n and instead of his first ethereal garment clothed him in a\n material body. When men had spread upon the earth, they developed\n these different natures: _Pneumatical_, which free from the\n bondage of every outward law and not subject to the impulses of\n the senses, a law unto themselves, travel toward the Pleroma;\n next, the _Hylic_, which, hostile to all spirit and law, and\n the sport of all lusts and passions, are doomed to irremediable\n destruction; and finally, the _Psychical_, which under the\n discipline of outward law attain not indeed to a perfect divine\n life, but yet to outward righteousness, while on the other hand\n they may sink down to the rank and condition of the Hylic natures.\n The _Psychical_ natures were particularly numerous among the\n Jews. Therefore the Demiurge chose them as his own, and gave\n them a strict law and through his prophets promised them a\n future Messiah. The _Hylic_ natures which were found mostly among\n the heathens, were utterly hateful to him. The _Pneumatical_\n natures with their innate longing after the Pleroma, he did not\n understand and therefore disregarded; but yet, without knowing\n or designing it, he chose many of them for kings, priests, and\n prophets of his people, and to his amazement heard from their\n lips prophecies of a higher soul, which originated from Achamoth,\n and which he did not understand. When the time was fulfilled,\n he sent his Messiah in the person of Jesus. When he was baptized\n by John, the heaven opened over him and the Ano-Soter descended\n upon him. The Demiurge saw it and was astonished, but submitted\n himself awe-stricken to the will of the superior deities. The\n Soter remained then a year upon the earth. The Jews, refusing to\n receive him, nailed his organ, the psychical Messiah, to a cross;\n but his sufferings were only apparent sufferings, since the\n Demiurge had supplied him in his origin with an ethereal and\n only seemingly material body. In consequence of the work of the\n Ano-Soter the Pneumatical natures by means of the Gnosis taught\n by him, but the Psychical natures by means of Pistis, attain unto\n perfection after their kind. When once everything pneumatical and\n psychical which was bound up in matter, has been freed from it,\n the course of the world has reached its end and the longed-for\n time of Achamoth\u2019s marriage will have come. Accompanied by\n myriads of his angels, the Soter leads the noble sufferer into\n the Pleroma. The pneumatical natures follow her, and as the\n Soter is married to Achamoth, the angels are married to them. The\n Demiurge goes with his tried and redeemed saints into the \u03a4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. But from the depths of the Hyle breaks forth a\n hidden fire which utterly consumes the Hylic natures and the Hyle\n itself.[40]\n\n \u00a7 27.5. According to Hippolytus the Valentinian school split\n up into two parties--an Italian party, the leaders of which,\n Heracleon and Ptolem\u00e6us [Ptolemy], were at Rome, and an Eastern\n party to which Axionicus and Bardesanes belonged. =Heracleon= of\n Alexandria was a man of a profoundly religious temperament, who\n in his speculation inclined considerably toward the doctrine of\n the church, and even wrote the first commentary on the Gospel\n of John, of which many fragments are preserved in Origen\u2019s\n commentary on that gospel. =Ptolem\u00e6us= [Ptolemy] drew even\n closer than his master to the church doctrine. Epiphanius quotes\n a letter of his to his pupil Flora in which, after Marcion\u2019s\n example (see \u00a7 27, 11), the distinction of the divine and the\n demiurgical in the Old Testament, and the relation of the Old\n Testament to the New, are discussed. A position midway between\n that of the West and of the East is apparently represented\n by Marcus and his school. He combined with the doctrine of\n Valentinus the Pythagorean and cabbalistic mysticism of numbers\n and letters, and joined thereto magical and soothsaying arts.\n His followers, the Marcosians, had a form of worship full of\n ceremonial observances, with a twofold baptism, a psychical\n one in the Kato-Christus for the forgiveness of sins, and a\n pneumatical one for affiance with the future heavenly syzygy.\n Of the Antiochean Axionicus we know nothing but the name. Of far\n greater importance was =Bardesanes=, who flourished according\n to Eusebius in the time of Marcus Aurelius, but is assigned by\n authentic Syrian documents to the beginning of the third century.\n The chief sources of information about his doctrine are the\n 56 rhyming discourses of Ephraem [Ephraim] against the heretics.\n Living at the court and enjoying the favour of the king of Edessa,\n he never attacked in his sermons the doctrinal system of the\n church, but spread his Gnostic views built upon a Valentinian\n basis in lofty hymns of which, besides numerous fragments in\n Ephraem [Ephraim], some are preserved in the apocryphal _Acta\n Thomae_ (\u00a7 32, 6). Among his voluminous writings there was a\n controversial treatise against the Marcionites (see \u00a7 27, 11).\n In a Dialogue, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, attributed to him, but probably\n belonging to one of his disciples named Philippus, from which\n Eusebius (_Pr\u00e6p. Ev._ vi. 10) quotes a passage, the Syrian\n original of which, \u201cThe Book of the Laws of the Land,\u201d was only\n recently discovered,[41] astrology and fatalism are combated\n from a Christian standpoint, although the author is still himself\n dominated by many Zoroastrian ideas. Harmonius, the highly gifted\n son of Bardesanes, distinguished himself by the composition of\n hymns in a similar spirit.\n\n \u00a7 27.6. =The Ophites and related Sects.=--The multiform Ophite\n Gnosis is in general characterized by fantastic combinations of\n Syro-Chaldaic myths and Biblical history with Greek mythology,\n philosophy and mysteriosophy. In all its forms the serpent (\u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1) plays an important part, sometimes as Kakodemon, sometimes\n as Agathodemon. This arose from the place that the serpent\n had in the Egyptian and Asiatic cosmology as well as in the\n early biblical history. One of the oldest forms of Ophitism is\n described by Hippolytus, who gives to its representatives the\n name of =Naassenes=, from \u05e0\u05b8\u05d7\u05b8\u05e9\u05c1. The formless original essence, \u1f41\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ce\u03bd, revealed himself in the first men, \u1f08\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, Adam, Cadmon,\n in whom the pneumatic, psychical and hylic principles were still\n present together. As the instrument in creation he is called\n Logos or Hermes. The serpent is revered as Agathodemon; it\n proceeds from the Logos, transmitting the stream of life to all\n creatures. Christ, the redeemer, is the earthly representative of\n the first man, and brings peace to all the three stages of life,\n because he, by his teaching, directs every one to a mode of life\n in accordance with his nature.--The =Sethites=, according to\n Hippolytus, taught that there were two principles: an upper one,\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, an under one, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and between these \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, the\n atmosphere that moves and causes motion. From a blending of light\n with darkness arose chaos, in which the pneuma awakened life.\n Then from chaos sprang the soul of the world as a serpent, which\n became the Demiurge. Man had a threefold development: hylic or\n material in Cain, psychical in Abel, and pneumatical in Seth, who\n was the first Gnostic.--The founders of the =Perates=, who were\n already known to Clement of Alexandria, are called by Hippolytus\n Euphrates and Celbes. Their name implies that they withdrew from\n the world of sense in order to secure eternal life here below,\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd. The original divine unity, they taught, had\n developed into a Trinity: \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 and \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd,\n the Father, the Son, and the Hyle. The Son is the world serpent\n that moves and quickens all things (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03c2). It is his\n task to restore everything that has sunk down from the two higher\n worlds into the lower, and is held fast by its Archon. Sometimes\n he turns himself serpent-like to his Father and assumes his\n divine attributes, sometimes to the lower world to communicate\n them to it. In the shape of a serpent he delivers Eve from the\n law of the Archon. All who are outlawed by this Archon, Cain,\n Nimrod, etc., belong to him. Moses, too, is an adherent of his,\n who erected in the wilderness the healing brazen serpent to\n represent him, while the fiery biting serpent of the desert\n represent the demons of the Archon. The =Cainites=, spoken of by\n Iren\u00e6us and Epiphanius, were closely connected with the Perates.\n All the men characterized in the Old Testament as godless are\n esteemed by them genuine pneumatical beings and martyrs for the\n truth. The first who distinguished himself in conflict with the\n God of the Jews was Cain; the last who led the struggle on to\n victory, by bringing the psychical Messiah through his profound\n sagacity to the cross, was Judas Iscariot. The Gnostic =Justin=\n is known to us only through Hippolytus, who draws his information\n from a _Book of Baruch_. He taught that from the original essence,\n \u1f41 \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2 or \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u05d9\u05b0\u05d4\u05d5\u05b8\u05b9\u05d4, emanated a male principle, \u1f18\u03bb\u03c9\u03b5\u03af\u03bc, \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd,\n which had a pneumatical nature, and a female principle, \u1f18\u03b4\u03ad\u03bc, \u05e2\u05b5\u05d3\u05b6\u05df,\n which was above man (psychical) and below the serpent (hylic).\n From the union of this pair sprang twelve \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, who\n had in them the father\u2019s nature, and twelve \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af,\n on whom the mother\u2019s nature was impressed. Together they formed\n Paradise, in which Baruch, an angel of Elohim, represented the\n tree of life, and Naas, an Edem-angel, represented the tree\n of knowledge. The Elohim-angel formed man out of the dust\n of Paradise; Edem gave him a soul, Elohim gave him a spirit.\n Pressing upward by means of his pneumatical nature Elohim raised\n himself to the borders of the realms of light. The Agathos took\n him and set him at his right hand. The forsaken Edem avenged\n himself by giving power to Naas to grieve the spirit of Elohim\n in man. He tempted Eve to commit adultery with him, and got Adam\n to commit unnatural vice with him. In order to show the grieved\n spirit of man the way to heaven, Elohim sent Baruch first to\n Moses and afterwards to other Prophets of the Old Testament;\n but Naas frustrated all his efforts. Even from among the heathen\n Elohim raised up prophets, such as Hercules whom he sent to fight\n against the twelve Edem-angels (his twelve labours), but one of\n them named Babel or Aphrodite robbed even this divine hero of his\n power (a reminiscence of the story of Omphale). Finally, Elohim\n sent Baruch to the peasant boy Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary.\n He resisted all the temptations of Naas, who therefore got him\n nailed upon the cross. Jesus commended his spirit into the hands\n of the Father, into whose heaven he ascended, leaving his body\n and soul with Edem. So, after his example, do all the pious.\n\n \u00a7 27.7. The Gnosis of the =Ophites=, described by Iren\u00e6us, etc.,\n is distinguished from that of the earlier Naasenes [Naassenes]\n by its incorporation of Valentinian and dualistic or Saturninian\n (see \u00a7 27, 9) ideas. From the Bythos who, as the primary being,\n is also called the first man, Adam Cadmon, emanates the thought,\n \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, of himself as the second man or son of man, and from\n him the Holy Spirit or the Ano-Sophia, who in turn bears the\n Ano-Christus and Achamoth. The latter, an imperfect being of\n light, who is also called \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, which according to Epiphanius\n means \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7, drives about through the dark ocean of chaos, over\n which the productive mother, the Holy Spirit, broods, in order\n to found for himself in it an independent world of his own. There\n dense matter unites with the element of light and darkens it to\n such a degree that even the consciousness of its own divine origin\n begins to fade away from it. In this condition of estrangement\n from God she produces the Demiurge, Jaldabaoth, \u05d9\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0 \u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05ea, son\n of chaos; and he, a wicked as well as limited being, full of\n arrogance and pride, determines that he himself alone will be\n lord and master in the world which he creates. This brings\n Achamoth to penitent deliberation. By the vigorous exercise of\n all the powers of light dwelling in her, and strengthened by a\n gleam of light from above, she succeeds in raising herself from\n the realm of chaos into the \u03a4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Nevertheless\n Jaldabaoth brought forth six star spirits or planets after his\n own image, and placed himself as the seventh at their head. But\n they too think of rebelling. Enraged at this Jaldabaoth glances\n wildly upon the deep-lying slime of the Hyle; his frightfully\n distorted countenance is mirrored in this refuse of chaos; the\n image there comes to life and forms Ophiomorphus or Satan. By\n order of Jaldabaoth the star spirits make man; but they produce\n only an awkward spiritless being that creeps along the ground. In\n order to quicken it and make it stand erect the Demiurge breathes\n into it his own breath, but thereby deprives himself of a great\n part of that pneumatical element which he had from his mother.\n The so-called fall, in which Ophiomorphus or the serpent was only\n the unconscious instrument of Achamoth, is in truth the beginning\n of the redemption of man, the advance to self-consciousness\n and moral freedom. But as a punishment for his disobedience\n Jaldabaoth drove him out of the higher material world, Paradise,\n into the lower, where he was exposed to the annoyances of\n Ophiomorphus, who also brought the majority of mankind, the\n heathens, under his authority, while the Jews served Jaldabaoth,\n and only a small number of pneumatical natures by the help\n of Achamoth kept themselves free from both. The prophets whom\n Jaldabaoth sent to his people, were at the same time unconscious\n organs of Achamoth, who also sent down the Ano-Christus from the\n Pleroma upon the Messiah, whose kingdom is yet to spread among\n all nations. Jaldabaoth now let his own Messiah be crucified,\n but the Ano-Christus was already withdrawn from him and had\n set himself unseen at the right hand of the Demiurge, where he\n deprives him and his angels of all the light element which they\n still had in them, and gathers round himself the pneumatical\n from among mankind, in order to lead them into the Pleroma.--The\n latest and at the same time the noblest product of Ophite\n Gnosticism is the =Pistis Sophia=,[42] appearing in the middle\n of the third century, with a strong tincture of Valentinianism.\n It treats mainly of the fall, repentance, and complaint of\n Sophia, and of the mysteries that purify for redemption, often\n approaching very closely the doctrine of the church.\n\n \u00a7 27.8. =Antinomian and Libertine Sects.=--The later\n representatives of Alexandrian Gnosticism on account of the\n antinomian tendency of their system fell for the most part into\n gross immorality, which excused itself on the ground that the\n pneumatical men must throw contempt upon the law of the Demiurge,\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, (whence they were also called Antitactes), and\n that by the practice of fleshly lusts one must weaken and slay\n the flesh, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af, so as to overcome the powers\n of the Hyle. The four following sects may be mentioned as those\n which maintained such views.--\n\n a. =The Nicolaitans=, who in order to give themselves the\n sanction of primitive Christianity sought to trace their\n descent from Nicolaus [Nicolas] the Deacon (Acts vi. 5). But\n while they have really no connection with him, they are just\n as little to be identified with the Nicolaitans of the\n Apocalypse (\u00a7 18, 3).\n\n b. In a similar way the =Simonians= sought to attach themselves\n to Simon Magus (\u00a7 25, 2). They gave to the fables associated\n with the name of Simon a speculative basis borrowed from\n the central idea of the philosophy of Heraclitus, that\n the principle of all things (\u1f21 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2) is fire.\n From it in three syzygies, \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae and\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1, \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 and \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, proceed the six roots of\n the supersensible world, and subsequently the corresponding\n six roots of the sensible world, Heaven and earth, Sun and\n moon, Air and water, in which unlimited force is present\n as \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ce\u03c2, \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, and \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Justin Martyr was already\n acquainted with this sect, and also Hippolytus, who quotes\n many passages from their chief treatise, entitled, \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 and reports scandalous things about their foul\n worship.\n\n c. =The Carpocratians.= In the system of their founder\n Carpocrates, who lived at Alexandria in the first half of\n the second century, God is the eternal Mould, the unity\n without distinctions, from whom all being flows and to whom\n all returns again. From Him the \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03af revolted.\n By the creation of the world they established a distinct\n order of existence apart from God and consolidated it by the\n law issuing from them and the national religions of Jews and\n Gentiles founded by them. Thus true religion or the way of\n return for the human spirit into the One and All consists\n theoretically in Gnosis, practically in emancipation from\n the commands of the Demiurge and in a life \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. The\n distinction of good and bad actions rests merely on human\n opinions. Man is redeemed by faith and love. In order to be\n able to overcome the powers that created the world, he is\n in need of magic which is intimately connected with Gnosis.\n Every human spirit who has not fully attained to this end of\n all religious endeavour, is subjected, until he reaches it,\n to the assumption of one bodily form after another. Among\n the heroes of humanity who with special energy and success\n have assailed the kingdom of the Demiurge by contempt\n of his law and spread of the true Gnosis, a particularly\n conspicuous place is assigned to Jesus, the son of Joseph.\n What he was for the Jews, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, etc.,\n were for the Gentiles. To the talented son of Carpocrates,\n named Epiphanes, who died in his seventeenth year, after\n impressing upon his father\u2019s Gnostic system a boundless\n communistic and libertine tendency with community of goods\n and wives, his followers erected a temple at Cephalonia, in\n which they set up for divine honours the statues of Christ\n and the Greek philosophers. At the close of their Agap\u00e6,\n they indulged in _Concubitus promiscuus_.\n\n d. =The Prodicians= flourished about the time of Clement of\n Alexandria, and were connected, perhaps, through their\n founder Prodicus, with the Carpocratians. In order to prove\n their dominion over the sensible world they were wont to\n appear in their assemblies naked, and hence are also called\n =Adamites=. So soon as they succeeded in thus reaching\n the state of innocence that had preceded the fall, they\n maintained that as pneumatical king\u2019s sons they were raised\n above all law and entitled to indulge in unbridled lust.\n\n \u00a7 27.9. =Saturninus=, or Satornilus of Antioch, according to\n Iren\u00e6us, a disciple of Menander, was one of the oldest Syrian\n Gnostics, during the age of Hadrian, and the one in whose system\n of Dualism the most decided traces of Parsee colouring is found.\n From the \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 the spirit world of the kingdom of light\n emanates in successive stages. On the lowest stage stand the\n seven planet spirits, \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, at their head the\n creator of the world and the god of the Jews. But from eternity\n over against the realm of light stands the Hyle in violent\n opposition under the rule of Satanas. The seven star spirits\n think to found therein a kingdom free and independent of the\n Pleroma, and for this purpose make an inroad upon the kingdom\n of the Hyle, and seize upon a part of it. Therefore they form\n the sensible world and create man as keeper thereof after a fair\n model sent by the good God of which they had a dim vision. But\n they could not give him the upright form. The supreme God then\n takes pity upon the wretched creature. He sends down a spark\n of light \u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1 into it which fills it with pneumatical life\n and makes it stand up. But Satanas set a hylic race of men\n over against this pneumatical race, and persecuted the latter\n incessantly by demons. The Jewish god then plans to redeem the\n persecuted by a Messiah, and inspires prophets to announce his\n coming. But Satan, too, has his prophets, and the Jewish god is\n not powerful enough to make his views prevail over his enemy\u2019s.\n Finally the good God sends to the earth the Aeon [\u00c6on] \u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, in\n what has the appearance of a body, in order that he as \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 may\n teach the pneumatical how to escape, by Gnosis and asceticism,\n abstaining from marriage and the eating of flesh, not only the\n attacks of Satan, but also the dominion of the Jewish god and his\n star spirits, how to emancipate themselves from all connection\n with matter, and to raise themselves into the realm of light.\n\n \u00a7 27.10. =Tatian and the Encratites.=--The Assyrian Tatian,\n converted to Christianity at Rome by Justin Martyr, makes his\n appearance as a zealous apologist of the faith (\u00a7 30, 10). In\n his later years, however, just as in the case of Marcion, in\n consequence of his exaggeration of the Pauline antithesis of\n flesh and spirit, law and grace, he was led to propound a theory\n of the dualistic opposition between the god of the law, the\n Demiurge, and the god of the gospel, which found expression\n in a Gnostic-ascetic system, completely breaking away from the\n Catholic church, and reaching its conclusion in the hyperascetic\n sect of the Encratites that arose in Rome about A.D. 172. He now\n became head and leader of this sect, which, with its fanatical\n demand of complete abstinence from marriage, from all eating of\n flesh and all spirituous liquors, won his approval, and perhaps\n from him received its first dogmatic Gnostic impress. Of Tatian\u2019s\n Gnostic writings, \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 and \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, only some fragments, with scanty notices of his\n Gnostic system, are preserved. His dualistic opposition of the\n god of the Old Testament and the god of the New Testament cannot\n have meant a thorough hostility, for he makes the Demiurge\n sitting in darkness address himself to the supreme God in\n the language of prayer, \u201cLet there be light.\u201d He declares,\n however, that Adam, as the author of the fall, is incapable\n of redemption.--His followers were also called \u1f59\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n Aquarii, because at the Supper they used water instead of wine.\n See Lit. at \u00a7 30, 10.\n\n \u00a7 27.11. =Marcion and the Marcionites.=--Marcion of Sinope in\n Pontus, who died about A.D. 170, was, according to Tertullian,\n a rich shipmaster who, on his arrival in Rome, in his early\n enthusiasm for the faith, bestowed upon the Church there a rich\n present, but was afterwards excommunicated by it as a heretic.\n According to the Pseudo-Tertullian and others he was the son of a\n bishop who excommunicated him for incontinence with one under the\n vow of virginity. The story may possibly be based upon a later\n misunderstanding of the charge of corrupting the church as the\n pure bride of Christ. He was a man of a fiery and energetic\n character, but also rough and eccentric, of a thoroughly\n practical tendency and with little speculative talent. He was\n probably driven by the hard inward struggles of his spiritual\n life, somewhat similar to those through which Paul had passed, to\n a full and hearty conception of the free grace of God in Christ;\n but conceived of the opposition between law and gospel, which the\n Apostle brought into harmony by his theory of the p\u00e6dogogical\n office of the law, as purely hostile and irreconcileable.\n At Rome in A.D. 140, the Syrian Gnostic =Cerdo=, who already\n distinguished between the \u201cgood\u201d God of Christianity and\n the \u201cjust\u201d God of Judaism, gained an influence over him.\n He consequently developed for himself a Gnostic system, the\n dominating idea of which was the irreconcilable opposition of\n righteousness and grace, law and gospel, Judaism and Christianity.\n He repudiated the whole of the Old Testament, and set forth\n the opposition between the two Testaments in a special treatise\n entitled _Antitheses_. He acknowledged only Paul as an Apostle,\n since all the rest had fallen back into Judaism, and of the whole\n New Testament he admitted only ten Pauline epistles, excluding\n the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistles to the Hebrews, and\n admitting the Gospel of Luke only in a mutilated form.[43]\n Marcion would know nothing of a secret doctrine and tradition\n and rejected the allegorical interpretation so much favoured\n by the Gnostics, as well as the theory of emanation and the\n subordination of Pistis under Gnosis. While other Gnostics\n formed not churches but only schools of select bands of\n thinkers, or at most only small gatherings, Marcion, after\n vainly trying to reform the Catholic church in accordance with\n his exaggerated Paulinism, set himself to establish a well\n organised ecclesiastical system, the members of which were\n arranged as _Perfecti_ or _Electi_ and _Catechumeni_. Of the\n former he required a strict asceticism, abstinence from marriage,\n and restriction in food to the simplest and least possible. He\n allowed the Catechumens, however, in opposition to the Catholic\n practice (\u00a7 35, 1), to take part in all the services, which were\n conducted in the simplest possible forms. The moral earnestness\n and the practical tendency of his movement secured him many\n adherents, of whom many congregations maintained their existence\n for a much longer time than the members of other Gnostic sects,\n even down to the seventh century. None of the founders of the old\n Gnostic sects were more closely connected in life and doctrine\n to the Catholic Church than Marcion, and yet, or perhaps just for\n that reason, none of them were opposed by it so often, so eagerly\n and so bitterly. Even Polycarp, on his arrival in Rome (\u00a7 37, 2),\n in reply to Marcion\u2019s question whether he knew him, said:\n \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6.--The general scope and\n character of =the System of Marcion= have been variously\n estimated. All older ecclesiastical controversialists, Justin,\n Rhodon in Eusebius, Tertullian and Iren\u00e6us, in their description\n and refutation of it seem to recognise only two principles\n (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af), which stand in opposition to one another, as \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2\n and \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. The latter appears as creator of the world,\n or Demiurge, the god of the Jews, the giver of the law, unable,\n however, by his law to save the Jews and deter them from breaking\n it, or to lead back the Gentiles to the observance of it. Then\n of his free grace the \u201cgood\u201d God, previously quite unknown,\n determined to redeem men from the power of the Demiurge. For this\n purpose he sends his Logos into the world with the semblance of a\n body. By way of accommodation he gives himself out as the Messiah\n of the Jewish god, proclaims the forgiveness of sins through free\n grace, communicates to all who believe the powers of the divine\n life, is at the instigation of the angry Demiurge nailed to the\n cross to suffer death in appearance only, preaches to Gentiles\n imprisoned in Hades, banishes the Demiurge to Hades, and\n ordains the Apostle Paul as teacher of believers.--The later\n heresiologists, however, Hippolytus, in his Elenchus, Epiphanius,\n Theodoret, and especially the Armenian Esnig (\u00a7 64, 3), are\n equally agreed in saying that Marcion recognised three principles\n (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af); that besides the good God and the righteous God he\n admitted an evil principle, the Hyle concentrated in Satan, so\n that even the pre-Christian development of the world was viewed\n from the standpoint of a dualistic conflict between divine powers.\n The righteous God and the Hyle, as a _quasi_ female principle,\n united with one another in creating the world, and when the\n former saw how fair the earth was, he resolved to people it with\n men created of his own likeness. For this purpose the Hyle at his\n request afforded him dust, from which he created man, inspiring\n him with his own spirit. Both divine powers rejoiced over man as\n parents over a child, and shared in his worship. But the Demiurge\n sought to gain undivided authority over man, and so commanded\n Adam, under pain of death, to worship him alone, and the Hyle\n avenged himself by producing a multitude of idols to whom the\n majority of Adam\u2019s descendants, falling away from the God of\n the law, gave reverence.--The harmonizing of these two accounts\n may be accomplished by assuming that the older Church Fathers,\n in their conflict with Marcion had willingly restricted\n themselves to the most important point in the Marcionite system,\n its characteristic opposition of the Gods of the Old and New\n Testaments, passing over the points in which it agreed more\n or less with other Gnostic systems; or by assuming that later\n Marcionites, such as Prepon (\u00a7 27, 12), in consequence of the\n palpable defectiveness and inadequacy of the original system of\n two principles, were led to give it the further development that\n has been described.[44]\n\n \u00a7 27.12. The speculative weakness and imperfection of his system\n led =Marcion\u2019s Disciples= to expand and remodel it in many ways.\n Two of these, Lucanus and Marcus, are pre-eminent as remodellers\n of the system, into which they imported various elements from\n that of Saturninus. The Assyrian =Prepon= placed the \u201crighteous\u201d\n Logos as third principle between the \u201cgood\u201d God and the \u201cevil\u201d\n Demiurge. Of all the more nameful Marcionites, =Apelles=, who\n died about A.D. 180, inclined most nearly to the church doctrine.\n Eusebius tells about a Disputation which took place in Rome\n between him and Rhodon, a disciple of Tatian. At the head of his\n essentially monistic system Apelles places the \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\n as the \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae. This God, besides a higher heavenly world, had\n created an order of angels, of whom the first and most eminent,\n the so-called _Angelus inclytus_ or _gloriosus_ as Demiurge made\n the earthly world after the image and to the glory of the supreme\n God. But another angel, the \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, corrupted his\n creation, which was already in itself imperfect, by bringing\n forth the \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, with which he clothed the souls enticed\n down from the upper world. It was he, too, who spoke to Moses out\n of the burning bush, and as the god of the Jews gave the law from\n Sinai. The Demiurge soon repented of his ill-fated performance,\n and prayed the supreme God to send his Son as redeemer. Christ\n appeared, lived, wrought and suffered in a real body. It was not,\n however, the \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 that he assumed, but a sinless body\n composed out of the four elements which he gave back to the\n elements on his ascension to heaven. Towards the close of his\n life Apelles seems, under the influence of the mystic revelations\n of a prophetess, Philoumena, whose \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 he published, to\n have more and more renounced his Gnostic views. He had already\n admitted in his Disputation with Rhodon, that even on the\n Catholic platform one may be saved, for the main thing is faith\n in the crucified Christ and the doing of his works. He would even\n have been prepared to subscribe to the Monotheism of the church,\n had he not been hindered by the opposition between the Old\n Testament and the New.\n\n \u00a7 27.13. The painter =Hermogenes= in North Africa, about A.D. 200,\n whom Tertullian opposed, took offence at the Catholic doctrine of\n creation as well as at the Gnostic theory of emanation, because\n it made God the author of evil. He therefore assumed an eternal\n chaos, from whose striving against the creative and formative\n influence of God he explained the origin of everything evil and\n vile.\n\n\n \u00a7 28. EBIONISM AND EBIONITIC GNOSTICISM.[45]\n\n The Jewish-Christianity that maintained separation from\nGentile-Christianity even after the overthrow of the Holy City and its\ntemple, assumed partly a merely separatist, partly a decidedly heretical\ncharacter. Both tendencies had in common the assertion of the continued\nobligation to observe the whole of the Mosaic law. But while the former\nlimited this obligation to the Christians of Jewish descent as the\npeculiar stem and kernel of the new Messianic community, and allowed the\nGentile Christians as Proselytes of the Gate to omit those observances,\nthe latter would tolerate no such concession and outran the Old\nTestament monotheism by a barren monarchianism that denied the\ndivinity of Christ (\u00a7 33, 1). At a later period the two parties were\ndistinguished as Nazareans and Ebionites. On the other hand, in the\nEbionites described to us by Epiphanius we have a form of Jewish\nChristianity permeated by Gnostic elements. These Ebionites, settling\nalong with the Essenes (\u00a7 8, 4) on the eastern shores of the Dead Sea,\ncame to be known under the name of Elkesaites. In the Pseudo-Clementine\nscheme of doctrine, this Ebionitic Gnosis was carried out in detail and\nwrought up into a comprehensive and richly developed system.\n\n \u00a7 28.1. =Nazareans and Ebionites.=--Tertullian and with him most\n of the later Church Fathers derive the name Ebionite from Ebion,\n a founder of the sect. Since the time of Gieseler, however, the\n name has generally been referred to the Hebrew word \u05d0\u05b6\u05d1\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df meaning\n poor, in allusion partly to the actual poverty of the church of\n Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 10), partly to the association of the terms\n poor and pious in the Psalms and Prophets (comp. Matt. v. 3).\n Minucius Felix, c. xxxvi. testifies that the Gentile Christians\n were also so designated by those without: _Ceterum quod plerique\n \u201cPauperes\u201d dicimur, non est infamia nostra, sed gloria_. Recently,\n however, Hilgenfeld has recurred to the patristic derivation of\n the name.--In Iren\u00e6us the name Ebion\u00e6i makes its first appearance\n in literature, and that as a designation of Jewish Christians\n as heretics who admitted only a Gospel according to Matthew,\n probably the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews (\u00a7 32, 4),\n branded the Apostle Paul as an apostate, insisted upon the\n strict observance of the Jewish law, and taught on Christological\n questions \u201c_consimiliter ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates_\u201d\n (\u00a7 27, 1, 8), while they denied that Christ was born of a virgin,\n and regarded Him as a mere man. Origen (\u2020 A.D. 243) embraced all\n Jewish Christians under the name \u1f18\u03b2\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 but did not deny the\n existence of two very different parties among them (\u03b4\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 and\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f18\u03b2\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9). Eusebius does the same. Jerome again is\n the first to distinguish the more moderate party by the name\n Nazareans (Acts xxiv. 5) from the more extreme who are designated\n Ebionites. This too is the practice of Augustine and Theodoret.\n The former party acknowledged the virgin birth of Christ and\n so His divine origin, assigned to Paul his place as Apostle\n to the Gentiles, and made no demand of Gentile Christians that\n they should observe the ceremonial law of Moses, although they\n believed that they themselves were bound thereby. The latter\n again regarded it as absolutely necessary to salvation, and also\n held that Christ was the Messiah, but only a man, son of Joseph\n by Mary, endowed with divine powers in His baptism. His Messianic\n work, according to them, consisted in His fulfilling by His\n teaching the Mosaic law. His death was an offence to them, but\n they took comfort from the promise of His coming again, when they\n looked for the setting up of an earthly Messianic kingdom. Paul\n was depreciated by them and made of little account. Ebionites\n of both parties continued to exist in small numbers down to the\n fifth century, especially in Palestine and Syria. Both however\n had sunk by the middle of the second century into almost utter\n insignificance. The scanty remains of writings issuing from the\n party prove that especially the non-heretical Jewish Christianity\n before the close of this century had in great part abandoned its\n national Jewish character, and therewith its separate position\n as a religious sect, and by adopting the views of the Pauline\n Gentile Christianity (\u00a7 30, 2) became gradually amalgamated\n with it.[46]\n\n \u00a7 28.2. =The Elkesaites.=--Independent accounts of this sect in\n substantial agreement with one another are given by Hippolytus\n in his _Elenchus_, by Origen as quoted in Eusebius, and by\n Epiphanius. Their designation has also led the Church Fathers\n to assume a sect founder of the name of Elxai or Elchasai,\n who is said to have lived in the time of Hadrian. The members\n of the sect themselves derived their name from \u05d7\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05e1\u05b8\u05d9, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, the hidden power of God operating in them, that is,\n the Holy Spirit, the \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 of the Clementine Homilies.\n Probably it was the title of a book setting forth their esoteric\n doctrine, which circulated only among those bound under oath to\n secrecy. Origen says that the book was supposed to have fallen\n down from heaven; Hippolytus says that it was held to have been\n revealed by an angel who was the Son of God himself. Elxai\n obtained it from the Serians in Parthia and communicated it to\n the Sobiai, probably from \u05e9\u05b9\u05c1\u05d1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7; then the Syrian Alcibiades brought\n it from Apamea to Rome in the third century. The doctrinal\n system of the Elkesaites was very variable, and is represented\n by the Church Fathers referred to as a confused mixture of\n Christian elements with the legalism of Judaism, the asceticism\n of Essenism, and the naturalism of paganism, and exhibiting a\n special predilection for astrological and magical fancies. The\n law was regarded as binding, especially the precepts concerning\n the Sabbath and circumcision, but the sacrificial worship was\n abandoned, and the portions of the Old Testament referring to\n it as well as other parts. Their doctrine of baptism varied from\n that of baptism once administered to that of a baptism by oft\n repeated washings on days especially indicated by astrological\n signs. Baptism was for the forgiveness of sins and also for the\n magical cure of the sick. It was administered in the name of the\n Father and the Son, and in addition there were seven witnesses\n called, the five elements, together with oil and salt, the latter\n as representative of the Lord\u2019s Supper, which was celebrated\n with salt and bread without wine. Eating of flesh was forbidden,\n but marriage was allowed and highly esteemed. Their Christology\n presented the appearance of unsettled fermentation. On the one\n hand Christ was regarded as an angel, and indeed as the \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, of gigantic size, 96 miles high, and 24 miles broad;\n but on the other hand, they taught also a repeated incarnation of\n Christ as the Son of God, the final One being the Christ born of\n the virgin. He represents the male principle, and by his side, as\n the female principle, stands the Holy Spirit. Denial of Christ in\n times of persecution seemed to them quite allowable. At the time\n of Epiphanius,--who identifies them with the _Sampseans_, whose\n name was derived from \u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05de\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 the sun, because in prayer they turned\n to the sun, called also \u1f29\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03af,--they had for the most part\n their residence round about the Dead Sea, where they got mixed\n up with the Essenes of that region.--More recently the Elkesaites\n have been brought into connection with the still extant sect\n of the Sabeans or Mandeans (\u00a7 25, 1). These Sabeans, from \u05e6\u05d1\u05e2\n meaning \u05d8\u05d1\u05e2, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, are designated by the medi\u00e6val Arabic\n writers _Mogtasilah_, those who wash themselves, and _Elchasaich_\n is named as their founder, and as teaching the existence of two\n principles a male and a female. [47]\n\n \u00a7 28.3. =The Pseudo-Clementine Series of Writings= forms a\n literature of a romantic historico-didactic description which\n originated between A.D. 160 and 170.\n\n a. The so-called =Homili\u00e6 XX Clementis=[48] were prefaced by\n two letters to the Apostle James at Jerusalem. The first\n of these is from Peter enjoining secrecy in regard to the\n \u201cKerugma\u201d sent therewith. The second is from Clement of Rome\n after the death of Peter, telling how he as the founder and\n first bishop of the church of Rome had ordained Clement as\n his successor, and had charged him to draw up those accounts\n of his own career and of the addresses and disputations\n of Peter which he had heard while the Apostle pursued and\n contended with Simon Magus, and to send them to James as\n head of the church, \u201cbishop of bishops, who ruled the church\n of Jerusalem and all the churches,\u201d that they might be\n certified by him. The historical framework of the book\n represents a distinguished Roman of philosophical culture\n and of noble birth, named Clement, as receiving his first\n acquaintance with Christianity at Rome, and then as going\n forth on his travels to Judea as an eager seeker after the\n truth. At Alexandria (\u00a7 16, 4) Barnabas convinces him of the\n truth of Christianity, and Clement follows him to C\u00e6sarea\n where he listens to a great debate between Peter and Simon\n Magus (\u00a7 25, 2). Simon defeated betakes himself to flight,\n but Peter follows him, accompanied by Clement and two who\n had been disciples of the magician, Niceta and Aquila.\n Though he goes after him from place to place, Peter does not\n get hold of Simon, but founds churches all along his route.\n On the way Clement tells him how long before his mother,\n Mattidia, and his two brothers had gone on a journey to\n Athens, and how his father, Faustus, had gone in search of\n them, and no trace of any of them had ever been found. Soon\n thereafter the mother is met with, and then it is discovered\n that Niceta and Aquila are the lost brothers Faustinus and\n Faustinianus. At the baptism of the mother the father also\n is restored. Finally at Laodicea Peter and Simon engage a\n second time in a four-days\u2019 disputation which ends as the\n first. The story concludes with Peter\u2019s arrival at Antioch.\n\n b. The ten books of the so-called =Recognitiones Clementis=,[49]\n present us again with the Clement of the historical romance,\n the historical here overshadowing the didactic, and a closer\n connection with church doctrine being here maintained.\n Critical examinations of the relations between the two sets\n of writings have more and more established the view that\n an older Jewish-Christian Gnostic work lay at the basis\n of both. This original document seems to have been used\n contemporaneously, but in a perfectly independent manner in\n the composition of both; the Homilies using the materials\n in an anti-Marcionite interest (\u00a7 27, 11), the Recognitions\n using them in such a way as to give as little offence as\n possible to their Catholic readers. Still it is questionable\n whether this original document, which probably bore the\n title of \u039a\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5, embraced in its earliest form\n the domestic romance of Clement, or only treated of the\n disputation of Peter with Simon at C\u00e6sarea, and was first\n enlarged by addition of the \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u039a\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 giving\n the story of Peter\u2019s travels (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9).\n\n c. Finally, extracts from the Homilies, worthless and of\n no independent significance, are extant in the form of\n two Greek =Epitom\u00e6= (ed. Dressel, Lps., 1859). Equally\n unimportant is the Syrian Epitome, edited by Lagarde, Lps.,\n 1861, a compilation from the Recognitions and the Homilies.\n All the three writers of the Epitomes had an interest only\n in the romantic narrative.\n\n \u00a7 28.4. =The Pseudo-Clementine Doctrinal System= is represented\n in the most complete and most original manner in the Homilies.\n In the conversations, addresses, and debates there reported the\n author develops his own religious views, and by putting them\n in the mouth of the Apostle Peter seeks to get them recognised\n as genuine unadulterated primitive Christianity, while all the\n doctrines of Catholic Paulinism which he objects to, as well\n as those of heretical Gnosticism and especially of Marcionism,\n are put into the mouth of Simon Magus, the primitive heretic;\n and then an attempt is made at a certain reconciliation and\n combination of all these views, the evil being indeed contended\n against, but an element of truth being recognised in them all. He\n directs his Polemics against the polytheism of vulgar paganism,\n the allegorical interpretation by philosophers of pagan myths,\n the doctrine of the creation of the world out of nothing and\n the sacrificial worship of Judaism, against the hypostatic\n Trinity of Catholicism, the chiliasm of the Ebionites, the pagan\n naturalistic element in Elkesaism, the dualism, the doctrine\n of the Demiurge, the Docetism and Antinomianism of the Gentile\n Christian Gnostics. He attempts in his Ironies to point out the\n Ebionitic identity of genuine Christianity with genuine Judaism,\n emphasizes the Essenic-Elkesaitic demand to abstain from eating\n flesh, to observe frequent fasts, divers washings and voluntary\n poverty (through a recommendation of early marriages), as well\n as the Catholic doctrine of the necessity of baptism for the\n forgiveness of sins, and justifies the Gnostic tendency of his\n times by setting up a system of doctrine of which the central\n idea is the connection of Stoical Pantheism with Jewish Theism,\n and is itself thoroughly dualistic: God the eternal pure Being\n was originally a unity of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, and his life consisted\n in extension and contraction, \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae, the symbol\n of which the human heart was a later copy. The result of such\n an \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 was the separation of \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, wherewith a\n beginning of the development of the world was made. The \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 is\n thus represented as \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2, also called \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 or \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2; the \u03a3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 is represented as \u039f\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 or \u1f5d\u03bb\u03b7 which four\n times parts asunder in twofold opposition of the elements. Satan\n springs from the mixing of these elements, and is the universal\n soul of the \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5. The \u03a3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 has thereby become\n \u1f14\u03bc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd and \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd. Thus the Monas has unfolded itself into a Dyas,\n as the first link of a long chain of contrasted pairs or Syzygies,\n in the first series of which the large and male stands opposite\n the small and female, heaven and earth, day and night, etc. The\n last Syzygy of this series is Adam as the true male, and Eve as\n the false female prophet. In the second series that relation had\n come to be just reversed, Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, etc.\n In the protoplasts this opposition of truth and falsehood, of\n good and evil, was still a physical and necessary one; but in\n their descendants, because both elements of their parents are\n mixed up in them, it becomes an ethical one, conditioning and\n requiring freedom of self-determination. Meanwhile Satan tempted\n men to error and sin; but the true prophet (\u1f41 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) in\n whom the divine \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 dwelt as \u1f14\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd and \u1f00\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd, always leads\n them back again into the true way of Gnosis and the fulfilment of\n the law. In Adam, the original prophet, who had taught whole and\n full truth, he had at first appeared, returning again after every\n new obscuration and disfigurement of his doctrine under varying\n names and forms, but always anew proclaiming the same truth. His\n special manifestations were in Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,\n Moses, and finally, in Christ. Alongside of them all, however,\n stand false prophets inspired by the spirit of lies, to whom even\n John the Baptist belongs, and in the Old Testament many of their\n doctrines and prophecies have slipped in along with the true\n prophecy. The transition from the original pantheistic to the\n subsequent theistic standpoint, in which God is represented as\n personal creator of the world, lawgiver, and governor, seems\n to have been introduced by means of the primitive partition of\n the divine being into \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03a3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1. In vain, however, do we\n seek an explanation of the contradiction that, on the one hand,\n the end of the development of the world is represented as the\n separation of the evil from the good for the eternal punishment\n of the former, but on the other hand, as a return, through the\n purification of the one and the destruction of the other, of all\n into the divine being, the \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Equally irreconcilable is\n the assertion of the unconditional necessity of Christian baptism\n with the assertion of the equality of all stages of revelation.\n\n\n \u00a7 29. MANICH\u00c6ISM.\n\n Manich\u00e6ism makes its appearance in Persia about the middle of the\nthird century, independently of the Gentile-Christian Gnosticism of the\nRoman empire, which was more or less under the influence of the Greek\nphilosophy of the second century, but bearing undoubted connection with\nMand\u00e6ism (\u00a7 25, 1), and Elkesaism (\u00a7 28, 2). In principle and tendency,\nit was at various points, as _e.g._ in its theory of emanation, its\ndoceticism, etc., connected with Gnosticism, but was distinguished\ntherefrom pre-eminently by using Christian soteriological ideas\nand modes of thought as a mere varnish for oriental pagan or\nBabylonian-Chaldaic theosophy, putting this in place of Platonic or\nStoical notions which are quite foreign to it, basing the system on\nPersian dualism and impregnating it with elements from Buddhist ethics.\nAnother point in which it is distinguished from Gnosticism is that it\ndoes not present itself as an esoteric form of religion meant only for\nthe few specially gifted spirits, but distinctly endeavours to build up\na community of its own with a regularly articulated constitution and a\nwell organized ritual.\n\n \u00a7 29.1. =The Founder.=--What the Greek and Latin Fathers (Titus\n of Bostra, Epiphanius, Augustine, etc.) say about the person and\n history of the founder of this sect is derived mainly from an\n account of a disputation which a bishop Archelaus of Cascar in\n Mesopotamia is said to have held with Manes or Manich\u00e6us. This\n document is written in Syriac and dates about A.D. 320, but it\n is simply a polemical work under the guise of a debate between\n men with historical names. These \u201cActs\u201d have come down to us in\n a very corrupt Latin version, and contain, especially in their\n historical allusions, much that is incredible and legendary,\n while in their representation of the doctrine of Manes they are\n much more deserving of confidence. According to them the origin\n of Manich\u00e6ism is to be attributed to a far travelled Saracen\n craftsman, named Scythianus, who lived in the age of the Apostles.\n His disciple, Terebinthus, who subsequently in Babylon took\n the name Buddas, and affirmed that he had been born of a\n virgin, wrote at the master\u2019s dictation four books, _Mysteria_,\n _Capitula_, _Evangelium_, _Thesaurus_, which after his death\n came into the possession of a freed slave, Cubricus or Corbicus.\n This man made the wisdom taught therein his own, developed it\n more fully, appeared in Persia as the founder of a new religion,\n and called himself Manes. He was even received at court, but\n his failure to heal a prince was used by the jealous magicians\n to secure his overthrow. He escaped, however, from prison,\n and found a safe hiding place in Arabion, an old castle in\n Mesopotamia. Meanwhile he had got access to the sacred writings\n of the Christians and borrowed much from them for the further\n development of his system. He now gave himself out as the\n Paraclete promised by Christ, and by means of letters and\n messengers developed a great activity in the dissemination of his\n views, especially among Christians. This led to the disputation\n of Archelaus above referred to, in which Manes suffered utter\n defeat. He was soon thereafter seized by order of the Persian\n king, flayed alive, and his stuffed skin publicly exhibited as\n a warning.\n\n The reports in Persian documents of the ninth and tenth centuries\n though later seem much more credible, and the dates derivable\n from Manes\u2019 own writings and those of his disciples quoted in\n Arabic documents of the tenth and eleventh centuries, are quite\n worthy of acceptance.[50] According to them Fatak the father\n of Manes, called \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in a Greek oath formula still extant,\n was descended from a noble Persian family in Hamadan or Ecbatana,\n married a princess of the Parthian Asarcidae, not long before\n this, in A.D. 226, driven out by the Persian Sassanid\u00e6, and\n settled down with her at Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital. Here\n he met with the Mogtasilah, Mandeans or Elkesaites (\u00a7 28, 2),\n then removed to Southern Chaldea, and trained his son, born in\n A.D. 216, with great care in this faith. But even in his twelfth\n year Manes received a divine revelation, which ordained him to\n be the founder of a new religion, and in his twenty-fourth year\n he was commissioned to preach this religion publicly. On his first\n appearance in Persia, on the coronation day of king Sapor I.,\n in A.D. 242, he met with so little support that he found it\n necessary to keep away from the Persian empire for several\n decades, which he spent in foreign lands developing his system\n and successfully prosecuting missionary work. It was only about\n the end of Sapor\u2019s reign (\u2020 A.D. 272) that he ventured again to\n return. He won over to his views the king\u2019s brother Peroz and\n through him found favour temporarily with Sapor, which, however,\n soon again turned into dislike. Sapor\u2019s successor, Hormuz or\n Hormisdas I., seemed inclined to be tolerant toward him. For\n this very reason Bahram or Baranes I. showed himself all the more\n hostile, and had him crucified in A.D. 276, his body flayed, and\n the skin stuffed with straw thrown out at the gate of the city.\n\n The two accounts may, according to Kessler, be brought into\n harmony thus. The name Scythianus was given to Fatak as coming\n from Parthia or Scythia. Terebinthus, a corruption of the Aramaic\n _tarbitha_, sapling, was given originally as _Nomen appell._ to\n the son of Fatak, and was afterwards misunderstood and regarded\n as _Nomen propr._ of an additional member of the family,\n intermediate between Fatak and Manes. In the Latin Cubricus,\n however, we meet with a scornful rendering of his original name,\n which he, on his entering independently on his work, exchanged\n for the name Manes.[51] The name Buddas seems to indicate some\n sort of connection with Buddhism. We also meet with the four\n Terebinthus books among the seven chief works of Manes catalogued\n in the Fihrist. According to a Persian document the _Evangelium_\n bore the title _Ertenki Mani_, was composed by Manes in a cave\n in Turkestan, in which he stayed for a long time during his\n banishment, and was adorned with beautiful illustrations, and\n passed for a book sent down to him direct from heaven.\n\n \u00a7 29.2. =The System.=--The different sets of documents give very\n different accounts of the religious system of Manich\u00e6ism. This is\n not occasioned so much by erroneous tradition or misconception as\n by the varying stages through which the doctrine of Manes passed.\n In Western and Christian lands it took on a richer Christian\n colouring than in Eastern and pagan countries. In all its forms,\n however, we meet with a groundwork of magical dualism. As in\n Parseeism, Ahriman and his Devas stand opposed to Ormuzd and\n his Ameshaspentas and Izeds, so also here from all eternity a\n luminous ether surrounding the realm of light, the _Terra lucida_,\n of the good God, with his twelve \u00e6ons and countless beings\n of light, stands opposed to the realm of darkness, the _Terra\n pestifera_, with Satan and his demons. Each of the two kingdoms\n consists of five elements: the former of bright light, quickening\n fire, clear water, hot air, soft wind; the latter of lurid flame,\n scorching fire, grimy slime, dark clouds, raging tempest. In\n the one, perfect concord, goodness, happiness, and splendour\n prevail; in the other, wild, chaotic and destructive waves dash\n confusedly about. Clothing himself in a borrowed ray of light,\n Satan prepared himself for a robber campaign in the realm of\n light. In order to keep him off the Father of Lights caused to\n emanate from him the \u201cMother of Life,\u201d and placed her as a watcher\n on the borders of his realm. She brought forth the first man\n (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2), who armed with the five pure elements engaged\n in battle with the demons. When he sank before their furious\n onslaught, God sent a newly emanated \u00e6on for his deliverance, the\n \u201cliving spirit\u201d (\u03b6\u1ff6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1), who freed him and vanquished the\n demons. But a portion of the ethereal substance of the first man,\n his armour of light, had been already devoured by the demoniac\n Hyle, and as the _Jesus patibilis_, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2,\n remains imprisoned in it. Out of the elements of light which he\n saved the living Spirit now forms the Sun and Moon, and settles\n there the first man as _Jesus impatibilis_, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2,\n while out of the Hyle impregnated with elements of light he\n constructs the present earthly world, in order gradually to\n deliver the fragments of light bound up in it, the _Jesus\n patibilis_ or the soul of the world, and to fit them for\n restoration to their eternal home. The first man dwelling in\n the sun and the Holy Spirit enthroned in the luminous ether have\n to further and direct this process of purification. The sun and\n moon are the two light-ships, _lucid\u00e6 naves_, which the light\n particles wrenched out of the world further increase. The zodiac\n with its twelve signs operates in this direction like a revolving\n wheel with twelve buckets, while the smaller ship, as new moon,\n receives them, and as full moon empties them again into the sun,\n which introduces them into the realm of light. In order to check\n this process of purification Satan, out of the Hyle and the\n imprisoned particles of light, of which he still had possession,\n made Adam and Eve after his own image and that of the first man,\n and incited them to fleshly lusts and carnal intercourse, so\n that the light of their soul became dim and weak, and more and\n more the body became its gloomy prison. His demons, moreover,\n were continually busying themselves in fastening the chains of\n darkness more tightly about their descendants by means of the\n false religions of Judaism and paganism. Therefore at last the\n _Jesus impatibilis_, clothed with the appearance of a body,\n descended from the sun to the earth, to instruct men about their\n souls and the means and end of their redemption. The sufferings\n and death inflicted upon him by the Prince of Darkness were only\n in appearance. The death of the cross and the resurrection were\n only sensible representations of the overthrow and final victory\n of the _Jesus patibilis_. As in the macrocosm of the earthly\n world there is set forth the emancipation of this suffering\n Christ from the bonds of hylic matter, so also in the microcosm\n represented in each individual man, we have the dominion of the\n spirit over the flesh, the redemption of the soul of light from\n the prison of the body, and its return to the realm of light,\n conceived of as the end and aim of all endeavour. The method\n for attaining this consists in the greatest possible abstinence\n from all connection and intercourse with the world of sense; the\n _Signaculum oris_ in particular demands absolute abstinence from\n all animal food and restriction in the use even of vegetable food,\n for in the slaughtering of the animal all elements of light are\n with the life withdrawn from its flesh, and only hylic elements\n remain, whereas in vegetable fare the substances of light there\n present contribute to the strengthening of the light in the man\u2019s\n own soul. Wine and all intoxicating drinks as \u201cSatan\u2019s gall\u201d\n are strictly forbidden, as well as animal food. The _Signaculum\n manuum_ prohibits all injuring of animal or plant life, all\n avoidable contact with or work upon matter, because the material\n is thereby strengthened. The _Signaculum sinus_ forbids all\n sensual pleasure and carnal intercourse. The souls of those men\n who have perfectly satisfied the threefold injunction, return at\n death immediately into the blessed home of light. Those who only\n partially observe them must, by transmigration of the soul into\n other bodies, of animals, plants or men, in proportion to the\n degree of purification attained unto, that is, by metempsychosis,\n have the purifying process carried to perfection. But all who\n have not entered upon the way of sanctification, are finally\n delivered over unreservedly to Satan and hell. The Apostles\n greatly misunderstood and falsified this doctrine of Christ;\n but in the person of Manes the promised Paraclete appeared, who\n taught it again in its original purity. For the most part Manes\n accepted the Pauline epistles in which the doctrines of the\n groaning creation and the opposition of flesh and spirit must\n have been peculiarly acceptable to him; all the more decidedly\n did he reject the Acts of the Apostles, and vigorously did\n he oppose the account which it gave of the outpouring of the\n Holy Spirit as in conflict with his doctrine of the Paraclete.\n According to the Fihrist, Manes distinguished from the _Jesus\n impatibilis_ who as true redeemer descended to earth in the\n appearance of a body, the historical Jesus as prophet of the\n Devil, and the false Messiah who for the punishment of his\n wickedness suffered actual death on the cross instead of the\n true Jesus. The Old Testament he wholly rejected. The god of the\n Jews was with him the Prince of Darkness; the prophets with Moses\n at their head were the messengers of the Devil. As his own true\n precursors--the precursors of the Paraclete--he named Adam, Seth,\n Noah, Abraham, Buddha, and Zoroaster.\n\n \u00a7 29.3. =Constitution, Worship, and Missionarizing.=--Manes was\n still regarded after his death as the invisibly present head\n (_Princeps_) of the church. At the head of the hierarchical order\n as his visible representative stood an Imam or Pope, who resided\n at Babylon. The first of these, appointed by Manes himself before\n his death, was named Sis or Sisinius. The Manich\u00e6an ministry\n was distributed under him into twelve _Magistri_ and seventy-two\n _Bishops_, with presbyters and deacons in numbers as required.\n The congregations consisted of Catechumens (_Auditores_) and\n Elect (_Electi_, _Perfecti_). The latter were strictly bound\n to observe the threefold _Signaculum_. The _Auditores_ brought\n them the food necessary for the support of their life and out\n of the abundance of their holiness they procured pardon to\n these imperfect ones for their unavoidable violation of mineral\n and vegetable life in making this provision. The _Auditores_\n were also allowed to marry and even to eat animal food; but\n by voluntary renunciation of this permission they could secure\n entrance into the ranks of the _Electi_. The worship of the\n Manich\u00e6ans was simple, but orderly. They addressed their prayers\n to the sun and moon. The Sunday was hallowed by absolute fasting,\n and the day of common worship was dedicated to the honour of\n the spirit of the sun; but on Monday the _Electi_ by themselves\n celebrated a secret service. At their annual chief festival,\n that of the Pulpit (\u03b2\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1), on the day of their founder\u2019s death,\n they threw themselves down upon the ground in oriental fashion\n before a beautifully adorned chair of state, the symbol of their\n departed master. The five steps leading up to it represented\n the five hierarchical decrees of the _Electi_, _Diaconi_,\n _Presbyteri_, _Episcopi_ and _Magistri_. Baptism and the Lord\u2019s\n Supper, the former with oil, the latter with bread without wine,\n belonged to the secret worship of the Perfect. Oil and bread were\n regarded as the most luminous bearers of the universal soul in\n the vegetable world.--Notwithstanding the violent persecution\n which after the execution of Manes was raised against the\n adherents of his doctrine throughout the whole Persian empire,\n their number increased rapidly in all quarters, especially in\n the East, but also in the West, in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, etc.\n Proconsular Africa became the centre of its Western propaganda;\n and thence it spread into Italy and Spain. In A.D. 290 Diocletian\n issued an edict by which the Proconsul of Africa was required to\n burn the leaders of this sect, doubly dangerous as springing from\n the hostile Persian empire, along with their books, to execute\n with the sword its persistent adherents, or send them to work in\n the quarries, and confiscate their goods.--Continuation at \u00a7 54, 1.\n\n\n\n\n III. THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT AND APOLOGETICAL\n ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.[52]\n\n\n \u00a7 30. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE POST-APOSTOLIC\n AGE, A.D. 70-170.[53]\n\n The literary remains of the so-called Apostolic Fathers constitute the\nfirst fruits of Patristic-Christian literature. These are in respect of\nnumber and scope insignificant, and, inasmuch as they had their origin,\nfrom the special individual circumstances of their writers, they were\ncomposed for the most part in the form of epistles. The old traditional\nview that the authors of these treatises had enjoyed the immediate\nfellowship and instruction of the Apostles is at once too narrow\nand too wide. Among these writings must be included first of all the\nrecently discovered \u201cTeaching of the Twelve Apostles.\u201d About A.D. 130,\nwhen Christianity was making its way among the ranks of the cultured,\nChristian writers began to feel themselves called upon to engage with\npaganism in a literary warfare defensive and offensive, in order to\nrepel the charges and calumnies raised against their religion and to\ndemonstrate its inner worth in opposition to the moral and religious\ndegradation of heathenism. These writings had a more theological and\nscientific character than those of the Apostolic Fathers, which had more\nof a practical and hortatory tendency. The works of these Apologists\nstill extant afford interesting and significant glimpses of the life,\ndoctrine, and thinking of the Christians of that age, which but for\nthese writings would have been almost unknown.\n\n \u00a7 30.1. =The Beginnings of Patristic Literature.=--According to\n the established rule of the church we have to distinguish between\n New Testament and Patristic literature in this way: to the former\n belongs those writings to which, as composed by Apostles or at\n least under Apostolic authority, the ancient church assigned\n an objectively fundamental and regulative significance for\n further ecclesiastical development; while in the latter we have\n represented the subjective conception and estimation which the\n Church Fathers made of the Christian message of salvation and\n the structure they reared upon this foundation. The so-called\n Apostolic Fathers may be regarded as occupying a position\n midway between the two and forming a transition from the one\n to the other, or as themselves constituting the first fruits\n of Patristic literature. Indeed as regards the New Testament\n writings themselves the ancient church was long uncertain and\n undecided as to the selection of them from the multitude of\n contemporary writings;[54] and Eusebius still designated several\n of the books that were subsequently definitely recognised\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1; while modern criticism has not only repeated such\n doubts as to the genuineness of these writings but has extended\n these doubts to other books of the New Testament. But even this\n criticism cannot deny the historical significance assigned above\n to those New Testament books contested by it, even though it may\n feel obliged to reject the account of them given by the ancient\n church, and to assign their composition to the Post-Apostolic\n Age.--When we turn to the so-called Apostolic Fathers, on closer\n examination the usual designation as well as the customary\n enumeration of seven names as belonging to the group will be\n found too narrow because excluding the New Testament writings\n composed by disciples of the Apostles, and too wide because\n including names which have no claim to be regarded as disciples\n or contemporaries of the Apostles, and embracing writings of\n which the authenticity is in some cases clearly disproved, in\n other cases doubtful or at least only problematical. We come upon\n firm ground when we proceed to deal with the Apologists of the\n age of Hadrian. It was not, however, till the period of the Old\n Catholic Church, about A.D. 170, that the literary compositions\n of the Christians became broadened, deepened and universalized\n by a fuller appropriation and appreciation of the elements\n of Gr\u00e6co-Latin culture, so as to form an all-sided universal\n Christian literature representative of Christianity as a universal\n religion.\n\n \u00a7 30.2. =The Theology of the Post-Apostolic Age.=--By far the\n greater number of the ecclesiastical writers of this period\n belong to the Gentile Christian party. Hence we might suppose\n that it would reflect the Pauline type of doctrine, if not in its\n full depth and completeness, yet at least in its more significant\n and characteristic features. This expectation, however, is not\n altogether realised. Among the Church Fathers of this age we\n rather find an unconscious deterioration of the original doctrine\n of Paul revealing itself as a smoothing down and belittling or\n as an ignoring of the genuine Paulinism, which, therefore, as\n the result of the struggle against the Gnostic tendency, only in\n part overcome, was for the first time fully recognised and proved\n finally victorious in the Reformation of the 16th century. On the\n one hand, we see that these writers, if they do not completely\n ignore the position and task assigned to Israel as the chosen\n people of God, minimise their importance and often fail to\n appreciate the p\u00e6dagogical significance of the Mosaic law\n (Gal. iii. 24), so that its ceremonial parts are referred to\n misunderstanding, want of sense, and folly, or are attributed\n even to demoniacal suggestion. But on the other hand, even\n the gospel itself is regarded again as a new and higher law,\n purified from that ceremonial taint, and hence the task of the\n ante-mundane Son of God, begotten for the purpose of creating the\n world, but now also manifest in the flesh, from whose influence\n upon Old Testament prophets as well as upon the sages of paganism\n all revelations of pre-Christian Judaism as well as all \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n of true knowledge in paganism have sprung, is pre-eminently\n conceived of as that of a divine teacher and lawgiver. In this\n way there was impressed upon the Old Catholic Church as it\n grew up out of Pauline Gentile Christianity a legalistic moral\n tendency that was quite foreign to the original Paulinism, and\n the righteousness of faith taught by the Apostle when represented\n as obedience to the \u201cnew law\u201d passed over again unobserved into a\n righteousness of works. Redemption and reconciliation are indeed\n still always admitted to be conditioned by the death of Christ\n and their appropriation to be by the faith of the individual;\n but this faith is at bottom nothing more than the conviction\n of the divinity of the person and doctrine of the new lawgiver\n evidencing itself in repentance and rendering of practical\n obedience, and in confident expectation of the second coming\n of Christ, and in a sure confidence of a share in the life\n everlasting.--The introduction of this legalistic tendency into\n the Gentile Christian Church was not occasioned by the influence\n of Jewish Christian legalism, nor can it be explained as\n the result of a compromise effected between Jewish Christian\n Petrinism and Gentile Christian Paulinism, which were supposed\n by Baur, Schwegler, etc., to have been, during the Apostolic\n Age, irreconcilably hostile to one another. This has been already\n proved by Ritschl, who charges its intrusion rather upon the\n inability of Gentile Christianity fully to understand the Old\n Testament bases of the Pauline doctrine. By means of a careful\n analysis of the undisputed writings of Justin Martyr and\n by a comparison of these with the writings of the Apostolic\n Fathers, Engelhardt has proved that anything extra-, un-, or\n anti-Pauline in the Christianity of these Fathers has not so much\n an Ebionitic-Jewish Christian, but rather a pagan-philosophic,\n source. He shows that the prevalent religio-moral mode of thought\n of the cultured paganism of that age reappears in that form\n of Christianity not only as an inability to reach a profound\n understanding of the Old Testament, but also just as much\n as a minimising and depreciating, or disdaining of so many\n characteristic features of the Pauline doctrinal resting on Old\n Testament foundations.\n\n \u00a7 30.3. =The so-called Apostolic Fathers.=[55]--\n\n a. =Clement of Rome= was one of the first Roman bishops,\n probably the third (\u00a7 16, 1). The opinion that he is to\n be identified with the Clement named in Phil. iv. 3 is\n absolutely unsupported. The sameness of age and residence\n in some small measure favours the identifying him with\n Tit. Flav. Clemens [Clement], the consul, and cousin of the\n Emperor, who on account of his Christianity (?) was executed\n in A.D. 95 (\u00a7 22, 1). Besides a multitude of other writings\n which subsequently assumed his well-known name (\u00a7 28, 3;\n 43, 4), there are ascribed to him two so-called Epistles\n to the Corinthians, of which however, the second certainly\n is not his. The First Epistle which in the ancient church\n was considered worthy to be used in public worship, was\n afterwards lost, but fragments of it were recovered in\n A.D. 1628 in the so-called _Codex Alexandrinus_ (\u00a7 152, 2),\n together with a portion of the so-called \u201cSecond Epistle.\u201d\n Recently however both writings were found in a complete\n form by Bryennius, Metropolitan of Serr\u00e4 in Macedonia, in\n a Jerusalem Codex of A.D. 1056 discovered at Constantinople\n and published by him.[56] In the following year a Codex\n of the Syrian New Testament at Cambridge was more closely\n examined,[57] and in it there was found a complete Syriac\n translation of both writings inserted between the Catholic\n and the Pauline Epistles, while in _Codex Alexandrinus_ they\n are placed after the Apocalypse. =The \u201cFirst\u201d Epistle=, the\n date of which is generally given as A.D. 93-95, does not\n give the author\u2019s name, but is assigned to Clement of Rome\n by Dionysius of Corinth in A.D. 170, as quoted in Eusebius,\n and by Iren\u00e6us, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and\n described as written from Rome in name of the church of that\n place to the church of Corinth, counselling peace and unity.\n In the passage c. 58-63, formerly wanting but now restored,\n the exhortation passes into a long prayer with intercessions\n for those in authority and for the church according to what\n was perhaps already the customary form of public prayer in\n Rome. Both churches, those of Rome and Corinth, are admitted\n without dispute to have been Gentile Christian churches,\n which had accepted the Pauline type of doctrine, without\n however fully fathoming or understanding it. But Peter also\n occupies a position of equal honour alongside of Paul, and\n nowhere does any trace appear of a consciousness of any\n opposition between the two apostles. The divine sonship\n of the Redeemer and His consequent universal sovereignty\n are the basis of the Christian confession, but no sort\n of developed doctrine of the divinity of Christ is here\n found, and even His pre-existence is affirmed only as the\n presupposition of the view that He was already operative in\n the prophets by His spirit. The Old Testament, allegorically\n and typically interpreted, is therefore the source and\n proof of Christian doctrine. Of a particular election of\n Israel the author knows nothing. Christians as such, whether\n descended from Gentiles or from Jews, are the chosen people\n of God; Abraham by reason of his faith is their father; and\n it is only by faith in the Almighty God that men of all ages\n have been justified before God.--In the so-called =Second\n \u201cEpistle\u201d= the completed form of the second half proves\n what the less complete form rendered probable, that it is\n no Epistle but a sermon, and indeed the oldest specimen of\n a sermon, that we here possess. The author, who delivered it\n somewhere about A.D. 144-150, wrote it out first for his own\n use, and then for the church. As it has in its theological\n views many points of contact with the _Shepherd of Hermas_\n (\u00a7 30, 4), Harnack thinks it probable that a younger\n Clement of Rome mentioned by Hermas may be the author;\n while Hilgenfeld is inclined to regard it as a youthful\n work of Clement of Alexandria (\u00a7 31, 4). It contains a\n forcible exhortation to thorough repentance and conversion\n in accordance with the command of Christ, with a reference\n to the judgment and the future glory. This shows in a\n remarkable way what rapid progress had been made from the\n religio-moral mode of thought of cultured paganism toward\n moralizing legalism, and the smoothing down of Christianity\n thereby introduced into the Gentile-Christian Catholic\n Church, during the half century between the composition of\n the Epistle of Clement and this Clementine discourse. For in\n the latter already the gospel is represented as a new law, a\n higher divine doctrine of virtue and reward, in which alms,\n fasts, and prayer appear as specially meritorious works. The\n righteousness that avails with God is still indeed derived\n from faith, but this faith is reduced to a belief in the\n future recompense of eternal life. Christ as Son of God is\n conceived of by the author as a pneumatical heavenly being,\n created before the world, who, sent by God into the world\n for man\u2019s redemption, took upon Him human \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be. But besides\n Him, he also knows a second pneumatical hypostasis created\n before the world, \u201cbefore sun and moon,\u201d the \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1,\n which, as the heavenly body of Christ, is at the same time\n the presupposition for the making of the world restored by\n His work of salvation. For the creation of this divine pair\n of \u00e6ons, that is, of Christ as the \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and\n of the church as His heavenly \u03c3\u03cd\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, the author refers\n to the account of the creation in Gen. i. 27. Of passages\n quoted as sayings of Christ several are not to be found in\n our Gospels.\n\n \u00a7 30.4.\n\n b. The Epistle known by the name of Paul\u2019s travelling companion\n =Barnabas= (Acts iv. 36) was first recovered in the 17th\n century. The first 4\u00bd chapters were added from an old Latin\n translation, till in the 19th century the _Codex Sinaiticus_\n of the New Testament, and recently also the Jerusalem\n Codex of Bryennius above referred to, supplied the complete\n Greek text.[58] The date of the epistle has been variously\n assigned to the age of Domitian, to that of Nerva, to that\n of Hadrian; and is placed by Harnack between A.D. 96 and\n A.D. 125. Its extravagant allegorical interpretation of\n the Old Testament betrays its Alexandrian origin, and in\n Gentile-Christian depreciation of the ceremonial law of the\n Old Testament it goes so far as to attribute the conception\n and actual composition of its books to diabolical inspiration.\n It admits indeed a covenant engagement between God and\n Israel, but maintains that this was immediately terminated\n by Moses\u2019 breaking of the tables of the law. All things\n considered the composition of this Epistle by Barnabas is\n scarcely conceivable. This was acknowledged by Eusebius\n who counted it among the \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, and by Jerome, who placed\n it among the Apocrypha. For the rest, however, its type\n of doctrine is in essential agreement with that of Paul,\n though it fails to penetrate the depths of apostolic\n truth. It is at least decidedly free from any taint of\n that legalistic-moral conception of Christianity which is\n so strongly masked in the discourse of Clement. The divine\n sonship, pre-existence, and world-creating activity of Christ\n is expressly acknowledged and taught, though there is yet no\n reference to the doctrine of the Logos.\n\n c. The prophetical writing known to us as =Pastor Herm\u00e6\n [Hermas]=,[59] which was first erroneously attributed by\n Origen to Hermas the scholar of Paul at Rome (Rom. xvi. 14),\n was so highly esteemed in the ancient church that it was\n used in public like the canonical books of the New Testament.\n Iren\u00e6us quotes it as holy scripture; Clement and Origen\n regarded it as inspired, and the African church of the 3rd\n century included it in the New Testament canon. On the other\n hand, the Muratorian canon (\u00a7 36, 8) had already ranked it\n among the Apocrypha that might be used in private but not in\n public worship. The book owes its title to the circumstance\n that in it an angel appears in the form of a shepherd\n instructing Hermas. It contains four visions, in which the\n church, which \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7, appears to the author\n as an old woman giving instruction (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1); it contains\n also twelve _Mandata_ of the angel, and finally, ten\n _Similitudines_ or parables. The Gentile-Christian origin of\n the author is shown by the position which he assigns to the\n church as coeval with the creation of the world and as at\n first embracing all mankind. The sending of the Son of God\n into the world has for its end not the founding but only the\n renewing and perfecting of the church, and the twelve tribes\n to which the Apostles were to preach the gospel are \u201cthe\n twelve peoples who dwell on the whole earth\u201d (comp. Deut.\n xxxii. 8). In all the three parts the book takes the form of\n a continuous earnest call to repentance in view of the early\n coming again of Christ, dominated throughout by that same\n legalistic conception of the Gospel that we meet with in the\n discourse of Clement. Indeed this is more fully carried\n out, for it teaches that the true penitent is able not\n only to live a perfectly righteous life, but also in good\n works, such as fasts, alms, etc., to do more than fulfil the\n commands of God, and in this way to win for himself a higher\n measure of the divine favour and eternal blessedness. In\n Hermas we find no trace of any application of the doctrine\n of the Logos to the person of Christ, and the ideas of the\n Son of God and the Holy Spirit are confused with one another.\n The Son of God as the Holy Spirit is \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2; at His suggestion and by His means God created\n the world; through Him He bears, sustains, and upholds it;\n and by Him He redeems it by means of His incarnation, for\n the Son of God as the Holy Spirit descends upon the man\n Jesus in His baptism. From its prophetical utterances,\n its eager expectation of the early return of the Lord,\n and its promises of a new outpouring of the Spirit for the\n quickening of the church already become too worldly, the\n book may be characterized as a precursor of the Montanist\n movement (\u00a7 40), although on questions of practical morality,\n such as second marriages, martyrdom, fasting, etc., it\n exhibits a milder tendency than that of Montanistic rigorism,\n and in reference to penitential discipline (\u00a7 39, 2), while\n acknowledging the inadmissibility of absolution for a mortal\n sin committed after baptism, it nevertheless, owing to\n the nearness of the second coming, allows to be proclaimed\n by the angel a repeated, though only short, space for\n repentance. The date of the composition of this book is\n still matter of controversy. Since Hermas is commanded in\n the second vision to send a copy of his book to \u201cClement\u201d in\n order to secure its further circulation, most of the earlier\n scholars, and among the moderns specially Zahn, identifying\n this Clement with the celebrated Roman Presbyter-Bishop\n of that name, fix its date at somewhere about A.D. 100.\n Recently, however, Harnack, v. Gebhardt, and others have\n rightly assigned much greater importance to the testimony\n of the Muratorian canon, according to which it was written\n somewhere between A.D. 130-160, \u201c_nuperrime temporibus\n nostris in urbe Roma_,\u201d by Hermas, the brother of the Roman\n bishop Pius (A.D. 139-154).\n\n \u00a7 30.5.\n\n d. =Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch=, is said to have been a\n pupil of the Apostle John, though no evidence of this can\n be produced from the Epistles ascribed to him. The _Acta\n martyrii sancti Ignatii_, extant in five parts, are purely\n legendary and full of contradictory statements. According\n to a later document, that of the Byzantine chronographer\n Joh. Malalas, at the time of the Parthian war during the\n visit of Trajan to Antioch in A.D. 115, soon after an\n earthquake had been experienced there, he was torn asunder\n by lions in the circus as a despiser of the gods. According\n to the martyrologies he was transported to Rome and suffered\n this fate there, as usually supposed in A.D. 115, in the\n opinion of Wieseler and others in A.D. 107 (Lightfoot says\n between A.D. 100-118), according to Harnack soon after\n A.D. 130.[60] The epistles to various churches and one\n to Polycarp ascribed to him have come down to us in three\n recensions differing from one another in extent, number and\n character. There is a shorter Greek recension containing\n seven, a larger Greek form, with expansions introduced for a\n purpose, containing thirteen epistles, twelve by and one to\n Ignatius, and the shortest of all in a Syriac translation\n containing three epistles, those to the Romans, to the\n Ephesians, and to Polycarp.[61] According to the first-named\n recension, Ignatius is represented as writing all his\n epistles during his martyr journey to Rome, but no reference\n to this is made in the Syrian recension. Vigorous polemic\n against Judaistic and Docetic heresy, undaunted confession\n of the divinity of Christ, and unwearied exhortation to\n recognise the bishop as the representative of Christ,\n while the presbyters are described as the successors of the\n Apostles, distinguish these epistles from all other writings\n of this age, especially in the two Greek recensions, and\n have led many critics to question their genuineness. Bunsen,\n Lipsius, Ritschl, etc., regarded the Syrian recension, in\n which the hierarchical tendency was more in the background,\n as the original and authentic form. Uhlhorn, D\u00fcsterdieck,\n Zahn, Funk, Lightfoot, Harnack, etc., prefer the shorter\n Greek recension, and view the Syrian form as abbreviated\n perhaps for liturgical purposes, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar,\n etc., deny the genuineness of all three. But even on this\n assumption, in determining the date of the composition of\n the two shorter recensions, to whichever of them we may\n ascribe priority and originality, we cannot on internal\n grounds put them later than the middle of the second century,\n whereas the larger Greek recension paraphrased and expanded\n into thirteen epistles belongs certainly to a much later\n date (\u00a7 43, 4).[62]\n\n \u00a7 30.6.\n\n e. =Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna=, had also been according to\n Iren\u00e6us ordained to this office by the Apostle John. He\n died at the stake under Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus Pius?)\n in A.D. 166 (or A.D. 155) at an extreme old age (\u00a7 22, 3).\n We possess an epistle of his to the Philippians of\n practical contents important on account of its New Testament\n quotations. Its genuineness, however, has been contested\n by modern criticism. It stands and falls with the seven\n Ignatian epistles, as it occupies common ground with them.\n We have a legendary biography of Polycarp by Pionius dating\n from the 4th century, which is reproduced in Lightfoot\u2019s\n work.\n\n f. =Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis= in Galatia, was also,\n according to Iren\u00e6us, a pupil of the Apostle John. This\n statement, however, in the opinion of Eusebius and many\n moderns, rests upon a confusion between the Apostle and\n another John, whom Papias himself distinguishes by the title\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (\u00a7 16, 2). He is said to have suffered death\n as a martyr under Marcus Aurelius, about A.D. 163. With\n great diligence he collected mediately and immediately\n from the mouths of the \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, that is, from such as\n had intercourse with the Apostles, or had been, like the\n above-mentioned John the Presbyter, \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, oral\n traditions about the discourses of the Lord, and set down\n the results of his inquiries in a writing entitled \u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. A passage quoted by Eusebius in his\n _Ch. Hist._, iii. 29, from the preface of this treatise has\n given rise to a lively controversy as to whether Papias was a\n pupil of the Apostle John and was acquainted with the fourth\n Gospel. Another fragment on the history of the origin of\n the Gospels of Matthew and Mark has occasioned a dispute\n as to whether only these two Gospels were known to him.\n Finally, there is preserved in Iren\u00e6us a passage giving a\n reputed saying of Christ regarding the fantastically rich\n fruitfulness of the earth during the thousand years\u2019 reign\n (\u00a7 33, 9). He so revels in fantastic and sensuous chiliastic\n dreams that Eusebius, who had previously spoken of him as\n a learned and well-read man, is driven to pass upon him the\n harsh judgment: \u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd.[63]\n\n g. Finally, we must here include an epistle to a certain\n =Diognetus= by an unknown writer, who has described himself\n as \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. Justin Martyr, among whose\n writings this epistle got inserted, cannot possibly have\n been the author, as both his style and his point of view\n are different. The epistle controverts in a spirited manner\n the objections of Diognetus to Christianity, views the\n pagan deities not, like the other Church Fathers, as demons,\n but as unsubstantial phantoms, explains the Old Testament\n institutions as human, and so in part foolish enactments,\n and maintains keenly and determinedly the opinion that\n God for the first time revealed Himself to man in Christ.\n He thus, as Dr\u00e4seke thinks, to some extent favours the\n Marcionite view of the Old Testament, so that he regards\n it as not improbable that our epistle was composed by a\n disciple of Marcion, one perhaps like Apelles, who in the\n course of the later development of the school had rejected\n many of his master\u2019s crudities (\u00a7 27, 12). He addresses\n his discourse to Diognetus, the stoical philosopher who\n boasts of Marcus Aurelius as his master. On the other hand,\n Overbeck assigns its composition to the Post-Constantine\n Age, and the French scholar Doulcet, setting it down to the\n age of Hadrian, thinks he has discovered the author to be\n the Athenian philosopher Aristides. This idea has been more\n fully carried out by Kihn, who endeavours to make out not\n only the identity of the author, but that of him to whom the\n epistle is addressed: \u039a\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u201cAlmighty son of\n Zeus,\u201d that is, Hadrian.\n\n \u00a7 30.7. =The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.=--The\n celebrated little treatise bearing the title \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd was discovered by Bryennius\n (then metropolitan of Serr\u00e4, now of Nicomedia) in the Jerusalem\n Codex, to which we also owe the perfect text of the two so-called\n Epistles of Clement, and it was edited by this scholar with\n prolegomena and notes in Greek, at Constantinople in 1883. It at\n once set in motion many learned pens in Germany, France, Holland,\n England, and North America.--Eusebius, who first expressly names\n it in his list of New Testament writings as \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af, which Rufinus renders by _Doctrina qu\u00e6 dicitur\n App._, places it in the closest connection with the Epistle of\n Barnabas among the \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1 (\u00a7 36, 8). Four years later\n Athanasius ranks it as \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0. along with the\n Shepherd of Hermas, giving it the first place, as a New Testament\n supplement corresponding to the Old Testament \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n (\u00a7 59, 1). Clement of Alexandria quoting a passage from it uses\n the formula, \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, and thus treats it as holy\n scripture. In Origen again no sort of reference to it has as\n yet been found. From the 39th Festival Epistle of Athanasius,\n A.D. 367, which ranks it, as we have just seen, as a New Testament\n supplement like the Old Testament Anaginoskomena, we know that\n it like these were used at Alexandria \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd in the\n instruction of catechumens. In the East, according to Rufinus,\n when enumerating in his _Expos. Symb. Ap._ the Athanasian\n Anaginoskomena, we find alongside of Hermas, instead of\n the Didache, the \u201cTwo Ways,\u201d _Du\u00e6 vi\u00e6 vel Judicium secundum\n Petrum_. Jerome, too, in his _De vir. ill._, mentions among the\n pseudo-Petrine writings a _Judicium Petri_. We have here no doubt\n a Latin translation or recension of the first six chapters of\n the Didache beginning with the words: \u1f4d\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9, these two\n ways being the way of life and the way of death. The second title\n instead of the twelve Apostles names their spokesman Peter as the\n reputed author of the treatise. Soon after the time of Athanasius\n our tract passed out of the view of the Church Fathers, but it\n reappears in the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the 4th century\n (\u00a7 43, 4, 5), of which it formed the root and stem. The Didache\n itself, however, should not be ranked among the pseudepigraphs,\n for it never claims to have been written by the twelve Apostles\n or by their spokesman Peter.--Bryennius and others, from the\n intentional prominence given to the twelve Apostles in the\n title and from the legalistic moralizing spirit that pervades\n the book, felt themselves justified in seeking its origin in\n Jewish-Christian circles. But this moralizing character it shares\n with the other Gentile-Christian writings of the Post-Apostolic\n Age (\u00a7 30, 2), and the restriction of the term \u201cApostles\u201d by the\n word \u201ctwelve\u201d was occasioned by this, that the itinerant preachers\n of the gospel of that time, who in the New Testament are called\n Evangelists (\u00a7 17, 5) were now called Apostles as continuators of\n the Apostles\u2019 missionary labours, and also the exclusion of the\n Apostle Paul is to be explained by the consideration that the\n book is founded upon the sayings of the Lord, the tradition\n of which has come to us only through the twelve. It has been\n rightly maintained on the other hand by Harnack, that the author\n must rather have belonged to Gentile-Christian circles which\n repudiated all communion with the Jews even in matters of mere\n form; for in chap. viii. 1, 2, resting upon Matt. vi. 5, 16,\n he forbids fasting with the hypocrites, \u201cthe Jews,\u201d or perhaps\n in the sense of Gal. ii. 13, the Jewish-Christians, on Monday\n and Thursday, instead of Wednesday and Friday according to the\n Christian custom (\u00a7 37, 3), and using Jewish prayers instead\n of the Lord\u2019s Prayer. The address of the title: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n is to be understood according to the analogy of Rom. xi. 13;\n Gal. ii. 12-14; and Eph. iii. 1. The author wishes in as brief,\n lucid, easily comprehended, and easily remembered form as\n possible, to gather together for Christians converted from\n heathenism the most important rules for their moral, religious\n and congregational life in accordance with the precepts of\n the Lord as communicated by the twelve Apostles, and in doing\n so furnishes us with a valuable \u201ccommentary on the earliest\n witnesses for the life, type of doctrine, interests and\n ordinances of the Gentile-Christian churches in the pre-Catholic\n age.\u201d As to the date of its composition, its connection with\n the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas indicates the\n period within which it must fall, for the connection is so close\n that it must have employed them or they must have employed it.\n However, not only is the age of the Epistle of Barnabas, as well\n as that of the Shepherd of Hermas, still undetermined, but it is\n also disputed whether one or other of these two or the Didache\n has priority and originality. On the other hand, the Didache\n itself in almost all its data and presuppositions bears so\n distinct an impress of an archaic character that one feels\n obliged to assign its date as near the Apostolic Age as possible.\n Harnack who feels compelled to ascribe priority not only to the\n Pseudo-Barnabas, but also to the Shepherd of Hermas, fixes its\n date between A.D. 140-165, after Hermas and before Marcion. On\n the other hand, Zahn and Funk, Lechler, Taylor, etc., give the\n Didache priority even over the Epistle of Barnabas. The place\n as well as the time of the composition of this work is matter\n of dispute. Those who maintain its Jewish-Christian origin think\n of the southern lands to the east or west of the Jordan; others\n think of Syria. On account of its connection with the Epistle\n of Barnabas, and with reference to Clement and Athanasius (see\n above), Harnack has decided for Egypt, and, on account of its\n agreement with the Sahidic translation of the New Testament in\n omitting the doxology from Matt. v. 13, he fixes more exactly upon\n Upper Egypt. The objection that the designation of the grain of\n which the bread for the Lord\u2019s Supper is made in the eucharistic\n prayer given in chap. ix. 4 as \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, does not\n correspond with that grown there, is sought to be set aside\n with the scarcely satisfactory remark that \u201cthe origin of the\n eucharistic prayer does not decide the origin of the whole\n treatise.\u201d That the book, however, does not bear in itself\n any specifically Alexandrian impress, such as, _e.g._, is\n undeniably met with in the Epistle of Barnabas, has been admitted\n by Harnack.[64]\n\n \u00a7 30.8. =The Writings of the Earliest Christian Apologists=[65]\n are lost. At the head of this band stood =Quadratus= of Athens,\n who addressed a treatise in defence of the faith to Hadrian, in\n which among other things he shows that he himself was acquainted\n with some whom Jesus had cured or raised from the dead. No trace\n of this work can be found after the 7th century. His contemporary,\n =Aristides= the philosopher, in Athens after his conversion\n addressed to the same emperor an Apology that has been praised by\n Jerome. A fragment of an Armenian translation of this treatise,\n which according to its superscription belongs to the 5th century,\n was found in a codex of the 10th century by the Mechitarists at\n S. Lazzaro, and was edited by them along with a Latin translation.\n This fragment treats of the nature of God as the eternal creator\n and ruler of all things, of the four classes of men,--barbarians\n who are sprung from Belos, Chronos, etc., Greeks from Zeus,\n Danaus, Hellenos, etc., Jews from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\n and Christians from Christ,--and of Jesus Christ as the Son of\n God born of a Jewish virgin, who sent His twelve Apostles into\n all the world to teach the nations wisdom. This probably formed\n the beginning of the Apology. The antique character of its point\n of view and the complete absence of any reference to the Logos\n doctrine or to any heretical teaching, lends great probability\n to the authenticity of this fragment, although the designation\n of the mother of Jesus as the \u201cbearer of God\u201d must be a\n later interpolation (comp. \u00a7 52, 3). The genuineness of the\n second piece, however, taken from another Armenian Codex,--an\n anti-docetic homily, _De Latronis clamore et Crucifixi\n responsione_ (Luke xxiii. 42), which from the words of Christ\n and those crucified with Him proves His divinity--is both on\n external and on internal grounds extremely doubtful. According\n to the Armenian editor this Codex has the title: By the Athenian\n philosopher Aristeas. This is explained as a corruption of the\n name Aristides, but recently another Catholic scholar, Dr. Vetter,\n on close examination found that the name was really that of\n Aristides.--To a period not much later must be assigned the\n apologetic dialogue between the Jewish Christian Jason and the\n Alexandrian Jew Papiscus, in which the proof from prophecy was\n specially emphasized, and the _in principio_ of Gen. i. 1 was\n interpreted as meaning _in filio_. The pagan controversialist\n Celsus is the first to mention this treatise. He considers it, on\n account of its allegorical fancies, not so much fitted to cause\n laughter as pity and contempt, and so regards it as unworthy of\n any serious reply. Origen, too, esteemed it of little consequence.\n Subsequently, however, in the 5th century, it obtained high\n repute and was deemed worthy of a Latin translation by the\n African bishop Celsus. The controversialist Celsus, and also\n Origen, Jerome, and the Latin translator, do not name the writer.\n His name is first given by Maximus Confessor as =Ariston of\n Pella=. Harnack has rendered it extremely probable that in the\n \u201c_Altercatio Simonis Jud\u00e6i et Theophili Christiani_\u201d discovered\n in the 18th century, reported on by Gennadius (\u00a7 47, 16), and\n ascribed by him to a certain Evagrius, we have a substantially\n correct Latin reproduction of the old Greek dialogue, in which\n everything that is told us about the earlier document is met\n with, and which, though written in the 5th century, in its ways\n of looking at things and its methods of proof moves within the\n circle of the Apologists of the 2nd century. In it, just as in\n those early treatises the method of proof is wholly in accordance\n with the Old Testament; by it every answer of the Christian\n to the Jew is supported; at last the Jew is converted and asks\n for baptism, while he regards the Christians as _lator salutis_\n and _\u00e6grotorum bone medice_ with a play probably upon the word\n \u1f38\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd=\u1f30\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 and from this it is conceivable how Clement of\n Alexandria supposed Luke, the physician, to be the author of\n the treatise. Harnack\u2019s conclusion is significant inasmuch as\n it lends a new confirmation to the fact that the non-heretical\n Jewish Christianity of the middle of the second century had\n already completely adopted the dogmatic views of Gentile\n Christianity. =Claudius Apollinaris=, bishop of Hierapolis,\n and the rhetorician =Miltiades of Athens= addressed very famous\n apologies to the emperor Marcus Aurelius. =Melito of Sardis= was\n also a highly esteemed apologist, and a voluminous writer in many\n other departments of theological literature.[66] The elaborate\n introduction to the mystical interpretation of scripture by\n investigating the mystical meaning of biblical names and words\n published in Pitra\u2019s \u201cSpicileg. Solesm.\u201d II. III., as \u201c_Clavis\n Melitonis_,\u201d belongs to the later period of the middle ages.\n Melito\u2019s six books of Eclogues deal with the Old Testament as a\n witness for Christ and Christianity, where he takes as his basis\n not the LXX. but the Hebrew canon (\u00a7 36, 1).[67]\n\n \u00a7 30.9. =Extant Writings of Apologists of the Post-Apostolic Age.=\n\n a. The earliest and most celebrated of these is =Justin\n Martyr=.[68] Born at Shechem (Flavia Neapolis) of Greek\n parents, he was drawn to the Platonic doctrine of God and to\n the Stoical theory of ethics, more than to any of the other\n philosophical systems to which, as a pagan, he turned in\n the search after truth. But full satisfaction he first found\n in the prophets and apostles, to whom he was directed by an\n unknown venerable old man, whom he once met by the sea-side.\n He now in his thirtieth year cast off his philosopher\u2019s\n cloak and adopted Christianity, of which he became a\n zealous defender, but thereby called down upon himself\n the passionate hatred of the pagan sages. His bitterest\n enemy was the Cynic Crescens in Rome, who after a public\n disputation with him, did all he could to compass his\n destruction. In A.D. 165, under Marcus Aurelius, Justin\n was condemned at Rome to be scourged and beheaded.--His two\n Apologies, addressed to Antoninus Pius and his son Marcus\n Aurelius are certainly genuine. Of these, however, the\n shorter one, the so-called second Apology is probably only\n a sort of appendix to the first. His _Dialogus cum Tryphone\n Jud\u00e6o_ is probably a free rendering of a disputation which\n actually occurred. Except a few fragments, his \u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 have been lost. It is disputed whether that was an\n integral part of the \u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd of which\n he himself makes mention, or a later independent work. The\n following are of more than doubtful authenticity: the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 (_Cohortatio ad Gr\u00e6cos_), which\n seeks to prove that not by the poets nor by the philosophers,\n but only by Moses and the prophets can the true knowledge\n of God be found, and that whatever truth is spoken by\n the former, they had borrowed from the latter; also, the\n shorter \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 (_Oratio ad Gr\u00e6cos_), on the\n irrationality and immorality of the pagan mythology; further,\n the short treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, which proves the vanity\n of polytheism from the admissions of heathen poets and\n philosophers; and a fragment \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.--Justin\u2019s\n theology is of the Gentile Christian type, quite free from\n any Ebionitic taint, inclining rather to the speculation and\n ethics of Greek philosophy and to an Alexandrian-Hellenistic\n conception and exposition of scripture. To these sources\n everything may be traced in which he unconsciously departs\n from biblical Paulinism and Catholic orthodoxy. Then in\n his idea of God and creation, he has not quite overcome the\n partly pantheistic, partly dualistic, principles derived\n from the Platonic philosophy. He shows traces of Alexandrian\n influences in his conception of the person and work of\n Christ, to whom he assigns merely the role of a divine\n teacher, who has made known the true idea of God the Creator,\n of righteousness, and of eternal life, and has won power by\n death, resurrection and ascension, and will give evidence\n of it by His coming again to reward the righteousness\n of the saints with immortal blessedness. He was also led\n into doctrinal aberrations in the anthropological domain,\n because his idea of freedom and virtue borrowed from Greek\n philosophy prevented him from fully grasping the Pauline\n doctrine of sin. His theory of morals, with its legalistic\n tendency and its righteousness of works, was grounded\n not in Judaism but in Stoicism. His chiliasm, too, is not\n Ebionitic but is immediately derived from scripture, and\n has less significance for his speculation than the other\n eschatological principles of Resurrection, Judgment, and\n Recompence. His Christianity consists essentially of only\n three elements: Worship of the true God, a virtuous life\n according to the commandments of Christ, and belief in\n rewards and punishments hereafter. Over against the pagan\n philosophy it represents itself as the true philosophy,\n and over against the Mosaic law as the new law freed from\n the fetters of ceremonialism. Even in the natural man, in\n consequence of the divine reason that is innate in him,\n there dwells the power of living as a Christian: Abraham\n and Elias, Socrates and Heraclitus, etc., have to such a\n degree lived according to reason that they must be called\n Christians. But even they possessed only \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5,\n only a \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5; for the divine reason dwells in men\n only as \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2; in Christ alone as the incarnate\n Logos it dwells as \u1f41 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c2 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03c4\u1f78 \u039b\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. He is\n the only true Son of God, pre-mundane but not eternal, the\n \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, or the \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, by whom\n God in the beginning created all things. The Father alone is\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, and the Logos only a divine being of the second\n rank, a \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, to whom,\n however, as such, worship should be rendered. In Justin\u2019s\n theological speculation the Holy Spirit stands quite in\n the background, though the baptismal and congregational\n Trinitarian confession obliged him to assign to the Spirit\n the rank of an independent divine being, whom the Logos had\n used for the enlightening of His prophets. Justin too knows\n nothing of a particular election of Israel as the people of\n God; with him the Christians as such are the true Israel,\n the people of God, the children of the faith of Abraham.\n From the Old Testament he proves the divinity of the person\n and doctrine of Christ, and from the \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd (\u00a7 36, 7) he derives his information about the\n historical life, teaching, and works of Jesus. The Gospel\n of John, although never mentioned, was not unknown to him,\n but it appeared to him more as a doctrinal and hortatory\n treatise than as a historical document, and undoubtedly\n his Logos doctrine is connected with that of John. He shows\n himself familiar with the Epistles of Paul, although he\n never expressly quotes from them.\n\n \u00a7 30.10.\n\n b. =Tatian=, a Greek born in Assyria (according to Zahn, a\n Semite) while engaged as a rhetorician at Rome, was won to\n Christianity by Justin Martyr, according to Harnack about\n A.D. 150. As the fruit of youthful zeal, he published an\n Apologetical \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, in which he treats the\n Greek paganism and its culture with withering scorn for\n even its noblest manifestations, and shared with his teacher\n the hatred and persecution of the philosopher Crescens.\n His later written \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd (\u00a7 36, 7) was a\n Gospel harmony, in which the removal of all reference to\n the descent of Jesus from the seed of David, according\n to the flesh, objected to by Theodoret, was occasioned\n perhaps more by antipathy to Ebionism than by any sympathy\n with Gnosticism. Zahn affirms, while Harnack decidedly\n denies, that this work was originally composed in Syriac. The\n exclusive use by the Syrians of the Greek name _Diatessaron_\n seems to afford a strong argument for a Greek original.\n Its general agreement with the readings of the so-called\n Itala (\u00a7 36, 8) witnesses to the West as the place of its\n composition. The introduction of a Syriac translation of it\n into church use in the East is to be explained by a longer\n residence of the author in his eastern home; and its neglect\n on the part of many of the Greek and Latin Church Fathers,\n and even their complete ignorance of it, may be accounted\n for by the fact that, while in the far East it was\n unsuspected, elsewhere it came to be branded as heretical\n (\u00a7 27, 10).[69]\n\n c. =Athenagoras=, about whose life we have no authentic\n information, in A.D. 177 addressed his \u03a0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\n (_Intercessio_) \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd to Marcus Aurelius, in\n which he clearly and convincingly disproves the hideous\n calumnies of Atheism, \u00c6dipodean atrocities, Thyestean feasts\n (\u00a7 22), and extols the excellence of Christianity in life and\n doctrine. In the treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd he proves,\n from the general philosophical rather than distinctively\n Christian standpoint, the necessity of resurrection from the\n vocation of man in connection with the wisdom, omnipotence\n and righteousness of God.\n\n d. =Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch= (\u2020 after A.D. 180), was\n by birth a pagan. His writing \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 is one of the most excellent apologetical\n treatises of this period. Autolycus was one of his heathen\n acquaintances. His commentaries and controversial works have\n been lost. Zahn, indeed, has sought to prove that an extant\n Latin Commentary on selected passages from the four Gospels\n in the allegorical style belonging to the first half of the\n 3rd century, and bearing the name of Theophilus of Antioch,\n is a substantially faithful translation of the authentic\n Greek original of A.D. 170. He has also called attention\n to the great importance of this commentary, not only for\n the oldest history of the Canon, Text and Exposition,\n but also for that of the church life, the development of\n doctrine and the ecclesiastical constitution, especially of\n the monasticism already appearing in those early times. But\n while Zahn reached those wonderful results from a conviction\n that the verbal coincidences of the Latin Church Fathers of\n the 3rd to the 5th centuries with the supposed Theophilus\n commentary were examples of their borrowing from it, Harnack\n has convincingly proved that this so-called commentary is\n rather to be regarded as a compilation from these same Latin\n Church Fathers made at the earliest during the second half\n of the 5th century.\n\n e. Finally, an otherwise unknown author =Hermias= wrote under\n the title \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd (_Irrisio gentilium\n philos._) a short abusive treatise, in a witty but\n superficial style, of which the fundamental principle is\n to be found in 1 Cor. iii. 19.\n\n\n \u00a7 31. THE THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF THE OLD CATHOLIC AGE,\n A.D. 170-323.\n\n From about A.D. 170, during the Old Catholic Age, scientific theology\nin conflict with Judaizing, paganizing and monarchianistic heretics\nprogressed in a more vigorous and comprehensive manner than in the\napologetical and polemical attempt at self-defence of Post-Apostolic\nTimes. Throughout this period, however, the zeal for apologetics\ncontinued unabated, but also in other directions, especially in\nthe department of dogmatics, important contributions were made to\ntheological science. While these developments were in progress, there\narose within the Catholic church three different theological schools,\neach with some special characteristic of its own, the Asiatic, the\nAlexandrian, and the North African.\n\n \u00a7 31.1. =The Theological Schools and Tendencies.=--=The School\n of Asia Minor= was the outcome of John\u2019s ministry there, and\n was distinguished by firm grasp of scripture, solid faith,\n conciliatory treatment of those within and energetic polemic\n against heretics. Its numerous teachers, highly esteemed in the\n ancient church, are known to us only by name, and in many cases\n even the name has perished. Only two of their disciples resident\n in the West--Iren\u00e6us and Hippolytus--are more fully known. A\n yet greater influence, more widely felt and more enduring, was\n that of the =Alexandrian School=.[70] Most of its teachers were\n distinguished by classical culture, a philosophical spirit,\n daring speculativeness and creative power. Their special task\n was the construction of a true ecclesiastical gnosis over against\n the false heretical gnosis, and so the most celebrated teachers\n of this school have not escaped the charge of unevangelical\n speculative tendencies. The nursery of this theological tendency\n was especially this Catechetical School of Alexandria which from\n an institution for the training of educated Catechumens had grown\n up into a theological seminary. =The North African School= by\n its realism, a thoroughly practical tendency, formed the direct\n antithesis of the idealism and speculative endeavours of the\n Alexandrian. It repudiated classical science and philosophy\n as fitted to lead into error, but laid special stress upon the\n purity of Apostolic tradition, and insisted with all emphasis\n upon holiness of life and strict asceticism.--Finally, our period\n also embraces the first beginnings of the =Antiochean School=,\n whose founders were the two presbyters Dorotheus and Lucian.\n The latter especially gave to the school in its earlier days\n the tendency to critical and grammatico-historical examination\n of scripture. At =Edessa=, too, as early as the end of the 2nd\n century, we find a Christian school existing.\n\n\n 1. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN GREEK.\n\n \u00a7 31.2. =Church Teachers of the Asiatic Type.=\n\n a. =Iren\u00e6us=, a pupil of Polycarp, was a native of Asia Minor.\n According to the _Vita Polycarpi_ of Pionius he lived in\n Rome at the time of Polycarp\u2019s death as a teacher, and it\n is not improbable that he had gone there in company with\n his master (\u00a7 37, 2). Subsequently he settled in Gaul, and\n held the office of presbyter at Lyons. During his absence at\n Rome as the bearer of a tract by the imprisoned confessors\n of Lyons on the Montanist controversy to the Roman bishop\n Eleutherus, Pothinus, the aged bishop of Lyons, fell a\n victim to the dreadful persecution of Marcus Aurelius which\n raged in Gaul. Iren\u00e6us succeeded him as bishop in A.D. 178.\n About the time and manner of his death nothing certain is\n known. Jerome, indeed, once quite casually designates him\n a martyr, but since none of the earlier Church Fathers, who\n speak of him, know anything of this, it cannot be maintained\n with any confidence. Gentleness and moderation, combined\n with earnestness and decision, as well as the most lively\n interest in the catholicity of the church and the purity of\n its doctrine according to scripture and tradition, were the\n qualities that make him the most important and trustworthy\n witness to his own age, and led to his being recognised in\n all times as one of the ablest and most influential teachers\n of the church and a most successful opponent of heretical\n Gnosticism. His chief work against the Gnostics: \u1f1c\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (_Adv. h\u00e6reses_) in 5 books,\n is mainly an _ex professo_ directed against the Valentinians\n and the schools of Ptolemy and Marcus There is appended to\n it, beyond what had been proposed at the beginning, a short\n discussion of the views of other Gnostics, the basis of\n which may be found in an older treatise, perhaps in the\n Syntagma of Justin. The last four books give the express\n scripture proofs to sustain the general confutation, without\n doing this, however, in a complete manner; at the same time\n there is rapid movement amid many digressions and excursuses.\n This work has come down to us in a complete form only\n in an old translation literally rendered in barbarous\n Latin, even to the reproduction of misunderstood words,\n which was used as early as by Tertullian in his treatise\n against the Valentinians. We are indebted to the writings\n of the heresiologists Hippolytus and Epiphanius for the\n preservation of many remarkable fragments of the original,\n with or without the author\u2019s name. Of his other writings\n we have only a few faint reminiscences. Two epistles\n addressed to the Roman presbyter Florinus combat the\n Valentinian heresy to which Florinus was inclined. During the\n controversy about Easter (\u00a7 37, 2) he wrote several epistles\n of a conciliatory character, especially one to Blastus in\n Rome, an adherent of the Asiatic practice, and in the name\n of the whole Gallic church, he addressed a letter to the\n Roman bishop, Victor, and afterwards a second letter in his\n own name.[71]\n\n \u00a7 31.3.\n\n b. =Hippolytus=, a presbyter and afterwards schismatical bishop\n at Rome, though scarcely to be designated of Asia Minor, but\n rather a Lyonese, if not a Roman pupil of Iren\u00e6us, belonged\n to the same theological school. He was celebrated for his\n comprehensive learning and literary attainments, and yet\n his career until quite recently was involved in the greatest\n obscurity. Eusebius, who is the first to refer to him,\n places him in the age of Alex. Severus (A.D. 222-235),\n calls him a bishop, without, however, naming his supposed\n oriental diocese, which even Jerome was unable to determine.\n The Liberian list of Popes of A.D. 354, describes him\n as _Yppolytus presbyter_ who was burnt in Sardinia about\n A.D. 235 along with the Roman bishop, Pontianus (\u00a7 41, 1).\n In the fifth century, the Roman church gave him honour as a\n martyr. The poet Prudentius (\u2020 A.D. 413) who himself saw the\n crypt in which his bones were laid and which in the book of\n his martyrdom was pictorially represented, celebrated his\n career in song. According to him Hippolytus was an adherent\n of the Novatian schism (\u00a7 41, 3), but returned to the\n Catholic church and suffered martyrdom at Portus near Rome.\n According to his own statement quoted by Photius he was\n a hearer of the doctrinal discourses of Iren\u00e6us. A statue\n representing him in a sitting posture which was exhumed at\n Rome in A.D. 1551, has on the back of the seat a list of\n his writings along with an Easter cycle of sixteen years\n drawn up by him (\u00a7 56, 3). Finally, there was found among\n the works of Origen a treatise on the various philosophical\n systems entitled _Philosophoumena_, which professes to be\n the first book of a writing in ten books found in Greece in\n A.D. 1842, \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. Starting from the\n position, and seeking to establish it, that the heretics\n have got their doctrines not from holy scripture, but from\n astrology, pagan mysteries and the Greek philosophers, this\n treatise is generally of great importance not only for the\n history of the heresies of the Gnostics and Monarchians,\n but also for the history of philosophy. The English editor,\n E. Miller (Oxon., 1851), attributed the authorship of the\n whole to Origen, which, however, from the complete difference\n of style, point of view and position was soon proved to be\n untenable. Since the writer admits that he was himself the\n author of a book \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and Photius\n ascribes a book with the same title to the Roman Caius\n (\u00a7 31, 7), Baur attributes to the latter the composition of\n the Elenchus. Photius, however, founds his opinion simply\n upon an apocryphal note on the margin of his copy of the\n book. Incomparably more important are the evidences for\n the Hippolytus authorship, which is now almost universally\n admitted. The Elenchus is not, indeed, enumerated in\n the list of works on the statue. The book \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, however, appears there, and it contains\n the statement that its author also wrote the Elenchus. The\n author of the Elenchus also states that he had previously\n written a similar work in a shorter form, and Photius\n describes such a shorter writing of Hippolytus, dating\n from the time of his intercourse with Iren\u00e6us, under the\n title \u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd. Lipsius has made it\n appear extremely probable that in the _Libellus adv. omnes\n h\u00e6reticos_ appended to Tertullian\u2019s _De pr\u00e6scriptione\n h\u00e6reticorum_, and so usually styled a treatise of the\n Pseudo-Tertullian, we have an abbreviated Latin reproduction\n of that work; for this one as well as the other begins\n with Dositheus and ends with No\u00ebtus, and both deal with\n thirty-two heresies. Epiphanius and Philastrius [Philaster]\n have used it largely in their heresiological works. The\n discussion in the Elenchus agrees therewith in many passages\n but also in many is essentially different, which, however,\n when we consider the much later date of the first named\n treatise affords no convincing evidence against the theory\n that both are by one author. The Elenchus thereby wins a\n high importance as giving information about the condition of\n the Roman church during the first decades of the 3rd century,\n about the position of the author who describes himself in\n his treatise as a pupil of Iren\u00e6us, about his own and his\n opponents\u2019 way of viewing things, and about his conflict\n with them leading to schism, though all is told from\n the standpoint of an interested party (\u00a7\u00a7 33, 5; 41, 1).\n A considerable fragment directed against the errors of\n No\u00ebtus (\u00a7 33, 5) was perhaps originally a part of his\n Syntagma,--though not perhaps of the anonymous, so-called\n Little Labyrinth against the Artemonites (\u00a7 33, 3) or\n probably against the Monarchians generally, from which\n Eusebius makes extensive quotations, especially about the\n Theodotians. This work is ascribed by Photius to the Roman\n Caius, but without doubt wrongly. Great probability has been\n given to the recently advanced idea that this book too may\n have been written by Hippolytus.[72]\n\n \u00a7 31.4. =The Alexandrian Church Teachers.=\n\n a. The first of the teachers of the catechetical school at\n Alexandria known by name was =Pant\u00e6nus=, who had formerly\n been a Stoic philosopher. About A.D. 190 he undertook\n a missionary journey into Southern Arabia or India, and\n died in A.D. 202 after a most successful and useful life.\n Jerome says of him: _Hujus multi quidem in s. Scri. exstant\n Commentarii, sed Magis viva voce ecclesiis profuit_. Of his\n writings none are preserved.\n\n b. =Titus Flavius Clemens [Clement]= was the pupil of Pant\u00e6nus\n and his successor at the catechetical school in Alexandria.\n On his travels undertaken in the search for knowledge he\n came to Alexandria as a learned pagan philosopher, where\n probably Pant\u00e6nus gained an influence over him and was\n the means of his conversion. During the persecution under\n Septimius Severus in A.D. 202 he sought in flight to escape\n the rage of the heathens, in accordance with Matt. x. 23.\n But he continued unweariedly by writing and discourse\n to promote the interests of the church till his death in\n A.D. 220. The most important and most comprehensive of his\n writings is the work in three parts of which the first part\n entitled \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 (_Cohortatio ad\n Gr\u00e6cos_) with great expenditure of learning seeks to prepare\n the minds of the heathen for Christianity by proving the\n vanity of heathenism; the second part, \u1f49 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2 in\n three books, with a _Hymnus in Salvatorem_ attached, gives\n an introduction to the Christian life; and the third part,\n \u03a3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 (_Stromata_), that is, patchwork, so-called from\n the aphoristic style and the variety of its contents, in\n eight books, setting forth the deep things of Christian\n gnosis, but in the form rather of a collection of materials\n than a carefully elaborated treatise. The little tractate\n \u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (_Quis dives salvetur_) shows how\n even wealth may be made contributory to salvation. Among\n his lost treatises the most important was the \u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n in eight books, an expository review of the contents of holy\n scripture.[73]\n\n \u00a7 31.5.\n\n c. Great as was the reputation of Clement, he was far\n outstripped by his pupil and successor =Origen=,\n acknowledged by pagan and Christian contemporaries to be\n a miracle of scholarship. On account of his indomitable\n diligence, he was named \u1f08\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. Celebrated as a\n philosopher, philologist, critic, exegete, dogmatist,\n apologist, polemist, etc., posterity has with equal right\n honoured him as the actual founder of an ecclesiastical and\n scientific theology, and reproached him as the originator\n of many heretical opinions (\u00a7\u00a7 51; 52, 6). He was born of\n Christian parents at Alexandria about A.D. 185, was educated\n under his father Leonidas, Pant\u00e6nus and Clement, while still\n a boy encouraged his father when he suffered as a martyr\n under Septimius Severus in A.D. 202, became the support\n of his helpless mother and his six orphaned sisters, and\n was called in A.D. 203 by bishop Demetrius to be teacher\n of the catechetical school. In order to qualify himself\n for the duties of his new calling, he engaged eagerly in\n the study of philosophy under the Neo-Platonist Ammonius\n Saccas. His mode of life was extremely simple and from\n his youth he was a strict ascetic. In his eager striving\n after Christian perfection he had himself emasculated,\n from a misunderstanding of Matt. xix. 12, but afterwards\n he admitted that that was a wrong step. His fame advanced\n from day to day. About A.D. 211 he visited Rome. Accepting\n an honourable invitation in A.D. 215 he wrought for a long\n time as a missionary in Arabia, he was then appointed by the\n celebrated Julia Mamm\u00e6a (\u00a7 22, 4) to Antioch in A.D. 218;\n and in A.D. 230 undertook in the interest of the church\n a journey to Greece through Palestine, where the bishops\n of C\u00e6sarea and Jerusalem admitted him to the rank of a\n presbyter. His own bishop, Demetrius, jealous of the daily\n increasing fame of Origen and feeling that his episcopal\n rights had been infringed upon, recalled him, and had him\n at two Alexandrian Synods, in A.D. 231 and 232, arraigned\n and excommunicated for heresy, self-mutilation and contempt\n of the ecclesiastical laws of his office. Origen now\n went to C\u00e6sarea, and there, honoured and protected by the\n Emperor, Philip the Arabian, opened a theological school.\n His literary activity here reached its climax. But under\n Decius he was cast into prison at Tyre, in A.D. 254,\n and died in consequence of terrible tortures which he\n endured heroically.--Of his numerous writings[74] only a\n comparatively small number, but those of great value, are\n preserved; some in the original, others only in a Latin\n translation.\n\n 1. To the department of =Biblical Criticism= belongs the\n fruit of twenty-seven years\u2019 labour, the so-called\n Hexapla, that is, a placing side by side the Hebrew text\n of the O.T. (first in Hebr. and then in the Gr. letters)\n and the existing Greek translations of the LXX., Aquila,\n Symmachus and Theodotion; by the addition in some\n books of other anonymous translations, it came to be\n an Octopla or Enneapla. By critical marks on the margin\n all variations were carefully indicated. The enormous\n bulk of fifty volumes hindered its circulation by means\n of transcripts; but the original lay in the library\n at C\u00e6sarea open to the inspection of all, until lost,\n probably in the sack of the city by the Arabians in\n A.D. 653.[75]\n\n 2. His =Exegetical works= consist of \u03a3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 or\n short scholia on separate difficult passages, \u03a4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n or complete commentaries on whole books of the bible,\n and \u1f49\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 or practical expository lectures. Origen,\n after the example of the Rabbinists and Hellenists,\n gave a decided preference to the allegorical method\n of interpretation. In every scripture passage he\n distinguished a threefold sense, as \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1,\n first a literal, and then a twofold higher sense, the\n tropical or moral, and the pneumatical or mystical.\n He was not just a despiser of the literal sense, but\n the unfolding of the mystical sense seemed to him\n of infinitely greater importance. All history in the\n bible is a picture of things in the higher world. Most\n incidents occurred as they are told; but some, the\n literal conception of which would be unworthy or\n irrational, are merely typical, without any outward\n historical reality. The Old Testament language is\n typical in a twofold sense: for the New Testament\n history and for the heavenly realities. The New\n Testament language is typical only of the latter.\n He regarded the whole bible as inspired, with the\n exception of the books added by the LXX., but the New\n Testament in a higher degree than the Old. But even the\n New Testament had defects which will only be overcome\n by the revelation of eternity.\n\n 3. To the department of =Dogmatics= belongs his four books\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd (_De Principiis_), which have come down to\n us in a Latin translation of Rufinus with arbitrary\n interpolations. His \u03a3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 in ten books which\n sought to harmonize the Christian doctrine with Greek\n philosophy is lost, and also his numerous writings\n against the heretics. His comprehensive apologetical\n work in eight books, _Contra Celsum_ (\u00a7 23, 3), has\n come down to us complete.[76] Gregory of Nazianzus\n [Nazianzen] and Basil the Great made a book entirely\n from his writings under the title \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, which\n contains many passages from lost treatises, and a\n valuable original fragment from his \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd. His\n principal doctrinal characteristics are the following:\n There is a twofold revelation, the primitive revelation\n in conscience to which the heathen owe their \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and the historical revelation in holy\n scripture; there are three degrees of religious\n knowledge, that of the \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, an unreasoned\n acceptance of the truth, wrought by God immediately in\n the heart of men, that of \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 to which\n the reasoning mind of man can reach by the speculative\n development of scripture revelation in his life, and\n finally, that of \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 or \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, the vision of God,\n the full enjoyment of which is attained unto only\n hereafter. For his doctrine of the Trinity, see \u00a7 33, 6.\n His cosmological, angelological and anthropological\n views represent a mixture of Platonic, Gnostic\n and spiritualistic ideas, and run out into various\n heterodoxies; thus, he believes in timeless or eternal\n creation, an ante-temporal fall of human souls,\n their imprisonment in earthly bodies, he denies the\n resurrection of the body, he believed in the animation\n and the need and capacity of redemption of the stars\n and star-spirits, in the restoration of all spirits to\n their original, ante-temporal blessedness and holiness,\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n 4. Of his =Ascetical Works=, the treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 with\n an admirable exposition of the Lord\u2019s prayer, and a\n \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd have been preserved.\n Of his numerous epistles, the _Epistola ad Julium\n Africanum_ defends against his correspondent the\n genuineness of the history of Susannah.\n\n \u00a7 31.6.\n\n d. Among the successors of Origen in the school of Alexandria\n the most celebrated, from about A.D. 232, was =Dionysius\n Alexandrinus= [of Alexandria]. He was raised to the rank\n of bishop in A.D. 247, and died in A.D. 265. In speculative\n power he was inferior to his teacher Origen. His special\n gift was that of \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. He was honoured by his own\n contemporaries with the title of The Great. During the\n Decian persecution he manifested wisdom and good sense\n as well as courage and steadfastness. The ecclesiastical\n conflicts of his age afforded abundant opportunities for\n testing his noble and gentle character, as well as his\n faithful attachment to the church and zeal for the purity of\n its doctrine, and on all hands his self-denying amiability\n wrought in the interests of peace. Of his much-praised\n writings, exegetical, ascetical, polemical (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u00a7 33, 9), apologetical (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 against the Atomism\n of Democritus and Epicurus), and dogmatical (\u00a7 33, 7),\n only fragments are preserved, mostly from his Epistles\n in quotations by Eusebius. We have, however, one short\n tract complete addressed to Novatian at Rome (\u00a7 31, 12),\n containing an earnest entreaty that he should abandon his\n schismatic rigorism.\n\n e. =Gregory Thaumaturgus= was one of Origen\u2019s pupils at C\u00e6sarea.\n Origen was the means of converting the truth-seeking heathen\n youth to Christianity, and Gregory clung to his teacher with\n the warmest affection. He subsequently became bishop of his\n native city of Neo-C\u00e6sarea, and was able on his death-bed\n in A.D. 270 to comfort himself with the reflection that he\n left to his successor no more unbelievers in the city than\n his predecessor had left him of believers (their number was\n seventeen). He was called the second Moses and the power of\n working miracles was ascribed to him. We have from his pen\n a panegyric on Origen, an Epistle on Church Discipline, a\n \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, a Confession of Faith important\n for the history of the Ante-Nicene period (\u00a7 50, 1): \u1f1c\u03ba\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Two other tracts in a Syrian translation are\n ascribed to him: To Philagrius on Consubstantiality, and\n To Theopompus on the Passibility of God. Dr\u00e4seke, however,\n identifies the first-named with Oratio 45 of Gregory\n Nazianzus [Nazianzen] and assigns to him the authorship.[77]\n\n f. The learned presbyter =Pamphilus= of C\u00e6sarea, the friend\n of Eusebius (\u00a7 47, 2) and founder of a theological seminary\n and the celebrated library of C\u00e6sarea, who died as a martyr\n under Maximinus, belongs to this group. His Old Testament\n Commentaries have been lost. In prison he finished his work\n in five books which he undertook jointly with Eusebius, the\n Apology for Origen, to which Eusebius independently added a\n sixth book. Only the first book is preserved in Rufinus\u2019\n Latin translation.\n\n \u00a7 31.7. =Greek-speaking Church Teachers in other Quarters.=\n\n a. =Hegesippus= wrote his five books \u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, about A.D. 180,\n during the age of the Roman bishop Eleutherus. From his\n knowledge of the Hebrew language, literature and traditions\n Eusebius concludes that he was a Jew by birth. He himself\n says distinctly that in A.D. 155 during the time of bishop\n Anicetus he was staying in Rome, and that on his way thither\n he visited Corinth. The opinion formerly current that\n his Hypomnemata consisted of a collection of historical\n traditions from the time of the Apostles down to the age of\n the writer, and so might be called a sort of Church History,\n arose from the historical character of the contents of eight\n quotations made from this treatise by Eusebius in his own\n Church History. It is, however, not borne out by the fact\n that what Hegesippus tells in his detailed narrative of the\n end of James the Just (\u00a7 16, 3) occurs, not in the first\n or second but in the fifth and last book of his treatise.\n Moreover, among writers against the heretics or Gnostics,\n Eusebius enumerates in the first place one Hegesippus,\n having it would seem his Hypomnemata in view. From this\n circumstance, in conjunction with everything else quoted\n from and told about him by Eusebius, we may with great\n probability conclude that the purpose of his writing was\n to confute the heresies of his age. In doing so he traces\n them partly to Gentile sources, but partly and mainly to\n pre-Christian Jewish heresies, seven of which are enumerated.\n He treats in the first three books of the so-called Gnostics\n and their relations to heathenism and false Judaism. Then in\n the fourth book he discusses the heretical Apocrypha and, as\n contrasted with them, the orthodox ecclesiastical writings,\n mentioning among them expressly the Epistle of Clemens\n [Clement] Romanus [of Rome] to the Corinthians. Finally,\n in the fifth book, he proves from the Apostolic succession\n of the leaders of the church, the unity and truth of\n ecclesiastically transmitted doctrine. The historical value\n of his writing, owing to the confusion and want of critical\n power shown in the instances referred to, cannot be placed\n very high. The school of Baur, more particularly Schwegler\n (see \u00a7 20), attached greater importance to him as a supposed\n representative of the anti-Pauline Judaism of his time.\n The value of his testimony in this direction, however, is\n reduced by his acknowledgment of the Epistle of Clement that\n accords so high a place to the Apostle Paul. His relations\n to Rome and Corinth, with his judgment on the general unity\n of faith in the church of his age, prove that he would be by\n no means disposed to repudiate the Apostle Paul in favour of\n any Ebionitic tendency.\n\n b. =Caius of Rome=, a contemporary of bishop Zephyrinus\n about A.D. 210, was one of the most conspicuous opponents\n of Montanism. Eusebius who characterizes him as \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, quotes four times from\n his now lost controversial tract in dialogue form against\n Proclus the Roman Montanist leader.\n\n \u00a7 31.8.\n\n c. =Sextus Julius Africanus=, according to Suidas a native of\n Libya, took part, as he says himself in his \u039a\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, in the\n campaign of Septimius Severus against Osrho\u00ebne in A.D. 195,\n became intimate with the Christian king Maanu VIII. of\n Edessa, whom in his Chronographies he calls \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1,\n and was often companion in hunting to his son and successor\n Maanu IX. About A.D. 220 we find him, according to Eusebius\n and others, in Rome at the head of an embassy from Nicopolis\n or Emmaus in Palestine petitioning for the restoration of\n that city. In consequence of Origen addressing him about\n A.D. 227 as \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2 it has been rashly concluded\n that he was then a presbyter or at least of clerical rank.\n The five books, \u03a7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, were his first and most\n important work. This work which was known partly in the\n original, partly in the citations from it in the Eusebian\n Chronicle (\u00a7 47, 2), together with its Latin continuation\n by Jerome proved a main source of information in general\n history during the Byzantine period and the Latin Middle\n Age. Beginning with the creation of the world and fixing\n the whole course of the world\u2019s development at 6,000 years,\n he set the middle point of this period to the age of Peleg\n (Gen. x. 25), and in accordance with the chronology of the\n LXX. and reckoning by Olympiads, proceeded to synchronize\n biblical and profane history. He assigned the birth of\n Christ to the middle of the sixth of the thousand year\n periods, at the close of which he probably expected the\n beginning of the millennium. From the fragments preserved\n by later Byzantine chroniclers, Gelzer has attempted to\n reproduce as far as possible the original work, carefully\n indicating its sources and authorities. Of the other works\n of Africanus we have in a complete form only an Epistle\n to Origen, \u201ca real gem of brilliant criticism spiced with\n a gentle touch of fine irony\u201d (Gelzer), which combats the\n authenticity and credibility of the Pseudo-Daniel\u2019s history\n of Susannah. We have also a fragment quoted in Eusebius\n from an Epistle to a certain Aristides, which attempts\n a reconciliation of the genealogies in Matt. and Luke by\n distinguishing \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 and \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 with reference\n to Deut. xxv. 5. According to Eusebius \u201cthe chronologist\n Julius Africanus,\u201d according to Suidas \u201cOrigen\u2019s friend\n Africanus with the pr\u00e6nomen Sextus,\u201d is also the author of\n the so called \u039a\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af (_embroidery_), a great comprehensive\n work of which only fragments have been preserved, in which\n all manner of wonderful things from the life of nature and\n men, about agriculture, cattle breeding, warfare, etc.,\n were recorded, so that it had the secondary title \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1.\n The excessive details of pagan superstition here reported,\n much of which, such as that relating to the secret worship\n of Venus, was distinctly immoral, and its dependence on\n the secret writings of the Egyptians seem now as hard to\n reconcile with the standpoint of a believing Christian, as\n with the sharpness of intellect shown in his criticism of\n the letter of Susannah. It has therefore been assumed that\n alongside of the Christian chronologist Julius Africanus\n there was a pagan Julius Africanus who wrote the \u039a\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af,--or,\n seeing the identity of the two is strongly evidenced both\n on internal and external grounds, the composition of the\n \u039a\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af is assigned to a period when the author was still a\n heathen. The facts, however, that the Chronicles close with\n A.D. 221 and that the \u039a\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af is dedicated to Alex. Severus\n (A.D. 222-235), seem to guarantee the earlier composition\n of the Chronicles. The author of the \u039a\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, too, by his\n quotation of Ps. xxxiv. 9 with the formula \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1,\n shows himself a Christian, and on the other hand, the author\n of the Chronicles says that at great cost he had made himself\n acquainted in Egypt with a celebrated secret book.\n\n \u00a7 31.9.\n\n d. =Methodius= bishop of Olympus in Lycia, subsequently at\n Tyre, a man highly esteemed in his day, died as a martyr\n in A.D. 311. He was a decided opponent of the spiritualism\n prevailing in the school of Origen. His \u03a3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd is a dialogue between several virgins regarding\n the excellence of virginity written in eloquent and glowing\n language (transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib., Edin., 1870). Of his\n other works only outlines and fragments are preserved by\n Epiphanius and Photius. To these belong \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03b5\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac, a polemic against the Platonic-Gnostic doctrine\n of the eternity of matter as the ultimate ground and cause\n of sin, which are to be sought rather in the misuse of\n human freedom; the dialogues \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 and \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, the former of which combats Origen\u2019s doctrine of\n the resurrection, and the latter his doctrine of creation.\n His controversial treatise against Porphyry (\u00a7 23, 3) has\n been completely lost.\n\n e. The martyr =Lucian of Samosata=, born and brought up in\n Edessa, was presbyter of Antioch and co-founder of the\n theological school there that became so famous (\u00a7 47, 1),\n where he, deposed by a Syrian Synod of A.D. 269, and\n persecuted by the Emperor Aurelian in A.D. 272, as supporter\n of bishop Paul of Samosata (\u00a7 33, 8), maintained his\n position under the three following bishops (till A.D. 303)\n apart from the official church, and died a painful martyr\u2019s\n death under the Emperor Maximinus in A.D. 312. That\n secession, however, was occasioned less perhaps through\n doctrinal and ecclesiastical, than through national and\n political, anti-Roman and Syrian sympathies with his\n heretical countrymen of Samosata. For though in the Arian\n controversy (\u00a7 50, 1) Lucian undoubtedly appears as the\n father of that Trinitarian-Christological view first\n recognised and combated as heretical in his pupil Arius in\n A.D. 318, this was certainly essentially different from the\n doctrine of the Samosatian. About Lucian\u2019s literary activity\n only the scantiest information has come down to us. His most\n famous work was his critical revision of the Text of the Old\n and New Testaments, which according to Jerome was officially\n sanctioned in the dioceses of the Patriarchs of Antioch\n and Constantinople, and thus probably lies at the basis of\n Theodoret\u2019s and Chrysostom\u2019s exegetical writings. Rufinus\u2019\n Latin translation of Eusebius\u2019 Church History gives an\n extract from the \u201cApologetical Discourse\u201d in which he seems\n to have openly confessed and vindicated his Christian faith\n before his heathen judge.\n\n\n 2. CHURCH FATHERS WRITING IN LATIN.\n\n \u00a7 31.10. =The Church Teachers of North Africa.=--=Quintus\n Septimius Florens Tertullianus [Tertullian]= was the son of a\n heathen centurion of Carthage, distinguished as an advocate and\n rhetorician, converted somewhat late in life, about A.D. 190,\n and, after a long residence in Rome, made presbyter at Carthage\n in A.D. 220. He was of a fiery and energetic character, in his\n writings as well as in his life pre-eminently a man of force,\n with burning enthusiasm for the truth of the gospel, unsparingly\n rigorous toward himself and others. His \u201cPunic style\u201d is terse,\n pictorial and rhetorical, his thoughts are original, brilliant\n and profound, his eloquence transporting, his dialectic clear\n and convincing, his polemic crushing, enlivened with sharp wit\n and biting sarcasm. He shows himself the thoroughly accomplished\n jurist in his use of legal terminology and also in the acuteness\n of his deductions and demonstrations. Fanatically opposed to\n heathen philosophy, though himself trained in the knowledge of it,\n a zealous opponent of Gnosticism, in favour of strict asceticism\n and hostile to every form of worldliness, he finally attached\n himself, about A.D. 220, to the party of the Montanists (\u00a7 40, 3).\n Here he found the form of religion in which his whole manner of\n thought and feeling, the energy of his will, the warmth of his\n emotions, his strong and forceful imagination, his inclination to\n rigorous asceticism, his love of bald realism, could be developed\n in all power and fulness, without let or hindrance. If amid\n all his enthusiasm for Montanism he kept clear of many of its\n absurdities, he had for this to thank his own strong common sense,\n and also, much as he affected to despise it, his early scientific\n training. He at first wrote his compositions in Greek, but\n afterwards exclusively in Latin, into which he also translated\n the most important of his earlier writings. He is perhaps not\n the first who treated of the Christian truth in this language\n (\u00a7 31, 12a), but he has been rightly recognised as the actual\n creator of ecclesiastical Latin. His writings may be divided into\n three groups.\n\n a. =Apologetical and Controversial Treatises against Jews and\n Pagans=, which belong to his pre-Montanist period. The most\n important and instructive of these is the _Apologeticus adv.\n Gentes_, addressed to the Roman governor. A reproduction of\n this work intended for the general public, less learned, but\n more vigorous, scathing and uncompromising, is the treatise\n in two books entitled _Ad Nationes_. In the work _Ad\n Scapulam_, who as Proconsul of Africa under Septimius\n Severus had persecuted the Christians with unsparing cruelty,\n he calls him to account for this with all earnestness and\n plainness of speech. In the book, _De testimonio anim\u00e6_\n he carries out more fully the thought already expressed in\n the _Apologeticus c. 17_ of the _Anima humana naturaliter\n christiana_, and proves in an ingenious manner that\n Christianity alone meets the religious needs of humanity.\n The book _Adv. Jud\u00e6os_ had its origin ostensibly in a public\n disputation with the Jews, in which the interruptions of his\n audience interferes with the flow of his discourse.\n\n b. =Controversial Treatises against the Heretics.= In the tract\n _De pr\u00e6scriptione h\u00e6reticorum_ he proves that the Catholic\n church, because in prescriptive possession of the field\n since the time of the Apostles, is entitled on the legal\n ground of _pr\u00e6scriptio_ to be relieved of the task of\n advancing proof of her claims, while the heretics on the\n other hand are bound to establish their pretensions. A\n heresiological appendix to this book has been erroneously\n attributed to Tertullian (see \u00a7 31, 3). He combats the\n Gnostics in the writings: _De baptismo_ (against the Gnostic\n rejection of water baptism); _Adv. Hermogenem_; _Adv.\n Valentinianos_; _De anima_ (an Anti-Gnostic treatise,\n which maintains the creatureliness, yea, the materiality of\n the soul, traces its origin to sexual intercourse, and its\n mortality to Adam\u2019s sin); _De carne Christi_ (Anti-Docetic):\n _De resurrectione carnis Scorpiace_ (an antidote to the\n scorpion-poison of the Gnostic heresy); finally, the five\n books, _Adv. Marcionem_. The book _Adv. Praxeam_ is directed\n against the Patripassians (\u00a7 33, 4). In this work his\n realism reaches its climax at c. 7 in the statement: \u201c_Quis\n enim negabit, Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est?\n Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie_,\u201d--where,\n however, he is careful to state that with him _corpus_ and\n _substantia_ are identical ideas, so that he can also say in\n c. 10 _de carne Christi_: \u201c_Omne quod est, corpus est sui\n generis. Nihil est incorporate nisi quod non est._\u201d\n\n c. =Practical and Ascetical Treatises.= His pre-Montanist\n writings are characterized by moderation as compared with\n the fanatical rigorism and scornful bitterness against the\n Psychical, _i.e._ the Catholics, displayed in those of the\n Montanist period. To the former class belong: _De oratione_\n (exposition of the Lord\u2019s Prayer); _De baptismo_ (necessity\n of water baptism, disapproval of infant baptism); _De\n p\u0153nitentia_; _De idolatria_; _Ad Martyres_; _De spectaculis_;\n _De cultu feminarum_ (against feminine love of dress); _De\n patientia_; _Ad uxorem_ (a sort of testament for his wife,\n with the exhortation after his death not to marry again,\n but at least in no case to marry an unbeliever). To the\n Montanist period belong: _De virginibus velandis_; _De\n corona militis_ (defending a Christian soldier who suffered\n imprisonment for refusing to wear the soldier\u2019s crown);\n _De fuga in persecutione_ (which with fanatical decision\n is declared to be a renunciation of Christianity); _De\n exhortatione castitatis_ and _De monogamia_ (both against\n second marriages which are treated as fornication and\n adultery); _De pudicitia_ (recalling his milder opinion\n given in his earlier treatise _De p\u0153nitentia_, that\n every mortal sin is left to the judgment of God, with the\n possibility of reconciliation); _De jejuniis adv. Psychicos_\n (vindication of the fasting discipline of the Montanists,\n \u00a7 40, 4); _De pallio_ (an essay full of wit and humour\n in answer to the taunts of his fellow-citizens about his\n throwing off the toga and donning the philosopher\u2019s mantle,\n _i.e._ the Pallium, which even the Ascetics might wear).[78]\n\n \u00a7 31.11. =Thascius C\u00e6cilius Cyprianus= [Cyprian], descended from\n a celebrated pagan family in Carthage, was at first a teacher\n of rhetoric, then, after his conversion in A.D. 245, a presbyter\n and from A.D. 248 bishop in his native city. During the Decian\n persecution the hatred of the heathen mob expressed itself in\n the cry _Cyprianum ad leonem_; but he withdrew himself for a\n time in flight into the desert in A.D. 250, from whence he guided\n the affairs of the church by his Epistles, and returned in the\n following year when respite had been given. The disturbances that\n had meanwhile arisen afforded him abundant opportunity for the\n exercise of that wisdom and gentleness which characterized him,\n and the earnestness, energy and moderation of his nature, as well\n as his Christian tact and prudence all stood him in good stead in\n dealing, on the one hand, with the fallen who sought restoration,\n and on the other, the rigorous schismatics who opposed them\n (\u00a7 41, 2). When persecution again broke out under Valerian in\n A.D. 257 he was banished to the desert Curubis, and when he\n returned to his oppressed people in A.D. 258, he was beheaded.\n His epoch-making significance lies not so much in his theological\n productions as in his energetic and successful struggle for the\n unity of the church as represented by the monarchical position\n of the episcopate, and in his making salvation absolutely\n dependent upon submission to episcopal authority, as well\n as in the powerful impetus given by him to the tendency to\n view ecclesiastical piety as an _opus operatum_ (\u00a7 39). As a\n theologian and writer he mainly attaches himself to the giant\n Tertullian, whose thoughts he reproduces in his works, with\n the excision, however, of their Montanist extravagances. Jerome\n relates that no day passed in which he did not call to his\n amanuensis: _Da magistrum_! In originality, profundity, force\n and fulness of thought, as well as in speculative and dialectic\n gifts, he stands indeed far below Tertullian, but in lucidity and\n easy flow of language and pleasant exposition he far surpasses\n him. His eighty-one Epistles are of supreme importance for the\n Ch. Hist. of his times, and next to them in value is the treatise\n \u201cDe unitate ecclesi\u00e6\u201d (\u00a7 34, 7). His _Liber ad Donatum s. de\n gratia Dei_, the first writing produced after his conversion,\n contains treatises on the leadings of God\u2019s grace and the\n blessedness of the Christian life as contrasted with the\n blackness of the life of the pagan world. The Apologetical\n writings _De idolorum vanitate_ and _Testimonia adv. Jud\u00e6os_,\n II. iii., have no claims to independence and originality. This\n applies also more or less to his ascetical tracts: _De habitu\n virginum_, _De mortalitate_, _De exhortatione martyrii_,\n _De lapsis_, _De oratione dominica_, _De bono patienti\u00e6_,\n _De zelo et livore_, etc. His work _De opere et eleemosynis_\n specially contributed to the spread of the doctrine of the merit\n of works.[79]\n\n \u00a7 31.12. =Various Ecclesiastical Writers using the Latin Tongue.=\n\n a. The Roman attorney =Minucius Felix=, probably of Cirta in\n Africa, wrote under the title of _Octavius_ a brilliant\n Apology, expressed in a fine Latin diction, in the form of a\n conversation between his two friends the Christian Octavius\n and the heathen C\u00e6cilius, which resulted in the conversion\n of the latter. It is matter of dispute whether it was\n composed before or after Tertullian\u2019s Apologeticus, and\n to which of the two the origin of thoughts and expressions\n common to both is to be assigned. Recently Ebert has\n maintained the opinion that Minucius is the older, and\n this view has obtained many adherents; whereas the contrary\n theory of Schultze has reached its climax in assigning the\n composition of the _Octavius_ to A.D. 300-303, so that he is\n obliged to ascribe the Octavius as well as the Apologeticus\n to a compiler of the fourth or fifth century, plagiarizing\n from Cyprian\u2019s treatise _De idolorum vanitate_!\n\n b. =Commodianus= [Commodus], born at Gaza, was won to\n Christianity by reading holy scripture, and wrote about\n A.D. 250 his _Instructiones adv. Gentium Deos_, consisting\n of eighty acrostic poems in rhyming hexameters and scarcely\n intelligible, barbarous Latin. His _Carmen apologeticum adv.\n Jud. et Gent._ was first published in 1852.\n\n c. The writings of his contemporary the schismatical =Novatian=\n of Rome (\u00a7 41, 3) show him to have been a man of no ordinary\n dogmatical and exegetical ability. His _Liber de Trinitate\n s. de Regula fidei_ is directed in a subordinationist\n sense against the Monarchians (\u00a7 33). The _Epistola de\n cibis Judaici_ repudiates any obligation on the part of\n Christians to observe the Old Testament laws about food;\n and the _Epistola Cleri Romani_ advocates milder measures\n in the penitential discipline.\n\n d. =Arnobius= was born at Sicca in Africa, where he was engaged\n as a teacher of eloquence about A.D. 300. For a long time he\n was hostilely inclined toward Christianity, but underwent a\n change of mind by means of a vision in a dream. The bishop\n distrusted him and had misgivings about admitting him\n to baptism, but he convinced him of the honesty of his\n intentions by composing the seven books of _Disputationes\n adv. Gentes_. This treatise betrays everywhere defective\n understanding of the Christian truth; but he is more\n successful in combating the old religion than in defending\n the new.\n\n e. The bishop =Victorinus of Pettau= (Petavium in Styria), who\n died a martyr during the Diocletian persecution in A.D. 303,\n wrote commentaries on the Old and New Testament books that\n are no longer extant. Only a fragment _De fabrica mundi_ on\n Gen. i. and Scholia on the Apocalypse have been preserved.\n\n f. =Lucius C\u0153lius Firmianus Lactantius= (\u2020 about A.D. 330),\n probably of Italian descent, but a pupil of Arnobius\n in Africa, was appointed by Diocletian teacher of Latin\n eloquence at Nicomedia. At that place about A.D. 301 he\n was converted to Christianity and resigned his office\n on the outbreak of the persecution. Constantine the Great\n subsequently committed to him the education of his son\n Crispus, who, at his father\u2019s command, was executed in\n A.D. 326. From his writings he seems to have been amiable\n and unassuming, a man of wide reading, liberal culture\n and a warm heart. The purity of his Latin style and the\n eloquence of his composition, in which he excels all the\n Church Fathers, has won for him the honourable name of the\n Christian Cicero. We often miss in his writings grip, depth\n and acuteness of thinking; especially in their theological\n sections we meet with many imperfections and mistakes.\n He was not only carried away by a fanatical chiliasm,\n but adopted also many opinions of a Manich\u00e6an sort. The\n _Institutiones divin\u00e6_ in seven bks., a complete exposition\n and defence of the Christian faith, is his principal work.\n The _Epitome div. inst._ is an abstract of the larger works\n prepared by himself with the addition of many new thoughts.\n His book _De mortibus persecutorum_ (Engl. trans. by\n Dr. Burnett, \u201cRelation of the Death of the Primitive\n Persecutors.\u201d Amsterdam, 1687), contains a rhetorically\n coloured description of the earlier persecutions as well\n as of those witnessed by himself during his residence in\n Nicomedia. It is of great importance for the history of the\n period but must be carefully sifted owing to its strongly\n partisan character. Not only the joy of the martyrs but\n also the proof of a divine Nemesis in the lives of the\n persecutors are regarded as demonstrating the truth of\n Christianity. The tract _De ira Dei_ seeks to prove the\n failure of Greek philosophy to combine the ideas of justice\n and goodness in its conception of God. The book _De opificio\n Dei_ proves from the wonderful structure of the human body\n the wisdom of divine providence. Jerome praises him as a\n poet; but of the poems ascribed to him only one on the bird\n ph\u0153nix, which, as it rises into life out of its own ashes\n is regarded as a symbol of immortality and the resurrection,\n can lay any claim to authenticity.\n\n\n \u00a7 32. THE APOCRYPHAL AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL LITERATURE.[80]\n\n The practice, so widely spread in pre-Christian times among pagans\nand Jews, of publishing treatises as original and primitive divine\nrevelations which had no claim to such a title found favour among\nChristians of the first centuries, and was continued far down into the\nGreek and Latin Middle Ages. The majority of the apocryphal or anonymous\nand pseudepigraphic writings were issued in support of heresies Ebionite\nor Gnostic. Many, however, were free from heretical taint and were\nsimply undertaken for the purpose of glorifying Christianity by what\nwas then regarded as a harmless _pia fraus_ through a _vaticinia post\neventum_, or of filling up blanks in the early history with myths and\nfables already existing or else devised for the occasion. They took the\nsubjects of their romances partly from the field of the Old Testament,\nand partly from the field of the New Testament in the form of Gospels,\nActs, Apostolic Epistles and Apocalypses. A number of them are\nprofessedly drawn from the prophecies of old heathen seers. Of greater\nimportance, especially for the history of the constitution, worship and\ndiscipline of the church are the Eccles. Constitutions put forth under\nthe names of Apostles. Numerous apocryphal Acts of Martyrs are for the\nmost part utterly useless as historical sources.\n\n \u00a7 32.1. =Professedly Old Heathen Prophecies.=--Of these the\n =Sibylline Writings= occupy the most conspicuous place. The\n Gr\u00e6co-Roman legend of the Sibyls, \u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 (\u00c6ol. for \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7), _i.e._ prophetesses of pagan antiquity, was wrought up\n at a very early period in the interests of Judaism and afterwards\n of Christianity, especially of Ebionite heresy. The extant\n collection of such oracles in fourteen books were compiled in the\n 5th or 6th century. It contains in Greek verses prophecies partly\n purely Jewish, partly Jewish wrought up by a Christian hand,\n partly originally Christian, about the history of the world, the\n life and sufferings of Christ, the persecutions of His disciples\n and the stages in the final development of His kingdom. The\n Christian participation in the composition of the Sibylline\n oracles began in the first century, soon after the irruption of\n Vesuvius in A.D. 79, and continued down to the 5th century. The\n Apologists, especially Lactantius, made such abundant use of\n these prophecies that the heathens nicknamed them Sibyllists.--Of\n the prophecies about the coming of Christ ascribed to an ancient\n Persian seer, =Hystaspes=, none have been preserved.\n\n \u00a7 32.2. =Old Testament Pseudepigraphs.=[81]--These are mostly of\n =Jewish Origin=, of which, however, many were held by the early\n Christians in high esteem.\n\n a. To this class belongs pre-eminently the =Book of Enoch=,\n written originally in Hebrew in the last century before\n Christ, quoted in the Epistle of Jude, and recovered only in\n an Ethiopic translation in A.D. 1821. In its present form in\n which a great number of older writings about Enoch and Noah\n have been wrought up, the book embraces accounts of the fall\n of a certain part of the angels (Gen. vi. 1-4; Jude 6; and\n 2 Pet. ii. 4), also statements of the holy angels about the\n mysteries of heaven and hell, the earth and paradise, about\n the coming of the Messiah, etc.\n\n b. The =Assumptio Mosis= (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2), from which, according to\n Origen, the reference to the dispute between Michael and\n Satan about the body of Moses in the Epistle of Jude is\n taken, was discovered by the librarian Ceriani at Milan.\n He found the first part of this book in an old Latin\n translation and published it in A.D. 1860. In the exercise\n of his official gift Moses prophesies to Joshua about the\n future fortunes of his nation down to the appearing of the\n Messiah. The second part, which is wanting, dealt with the\n translation of Moses. The exact date of its composition is\n not determined, but it may be perhaps assigned to the first\n Christian century.\n\n c. The so-called =Fourth Book of Ezra= is first referred to by\n Clement of Alexandria. It is an Apocalypse after the manner\n of the Book of Daniel. It was probably written originally in\n Greek but we possess only translations: a Latin one and four\n oriental ones--Ethiopic, Arabic, Syriac and Armenian. From\n these oriental translations the blanks in the Latin version\n have been supplied, and its later Christian interpolations\n have been detected. The angel Uriel in seven visions makes\n known to the weeping Ezra the signs of the approaching\n destruction of Jerusalem, the decay of the Roman empire,\n the founding of the Messianic kingdom, etc. The fifth vision\n of the eagle with twelve wings and three heads seems to fix\n the date of its composition to the time of Domitian.\n\n d. In the year 1843 the missionary Krapff sent to T\u00fcbingen\n the title of an Ethiopic Codex, in which Ewald recognised\n the writing referred to frequently by the Church Fathers as\n the =Book of Jubilees= (\u1f38\u03c9\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1) or the =Little Genesis=\n (\u039b\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). This book, written probably about A.D. 50\n or 60, is a complete summary of the Jewish legendary matter\n about the early biblical history from the creation down to\n the entrance into Canaan, divided into fifty jubilee periods.\n The name _Little Genesis_ was given it, notwithstanding\n its large dimensions, as indicating a Genesis of the second\n rank.[82]\n\n \u00a7 32.3. The following Pseudepigraphs are of =Christian Origin=.\n\n a. The short romantic =History of Assenath=, daughter of\n Potiphar and wife of Joseph (Gen. xli. 45). Its main point\n is the conversion of Assenath by an angel.\n\n b. =The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs=, after the style of\n Gen. xlix., written in Greek in the 2nd cent., and quoted\n by Origen. As in the chapter of Gen. referred to parting\n counsels are put in the mouth of Jacob, they are here\n ascribed to his twelve sons. These discourses embrace\n prophecies of the coming of Christ and His atoning\n sufferings and death, statements about baptism and the\n Lord\u2019s supper, about the great Apostle of the Gentiles,\n the rejection of the O.T. covenant people and the election\n of the Gentiles, the destruction of Jerusalem and the\n final completion of the kingdom of God. The book is thus a\n cleverly compiled and comprehensive handbook of Christian\n faith, life and hope.\n\n c. Of the =Ascensio Isai\u00e6= (\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd) and the =Visio Isai\u00e6=\n (\u1f4d\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) traces are to be found as early as in Justin\n Martyr and Tertullian. The Greek original is lost. Dillmann\n published an old Ethiopic version (Lps., 1877), and Gieseler\n an old Lat. text (G\u00f6tt., 1832). Its Cabbalistic colouring\n commended it to the Gnostics. In its first part, borrowed\n from an old Jewish document, it tells about the martyrdom of\n Isaiah who was sawn asunder by King Manasseh; in its second\n part, entitled _Visio Isai\u00e6_ it is told how the prophet in\n an ecstasy was led by an angel through the seven heavens and\n had revealed to him the secrets of the divine counsels\n regarding the incarnation of Christ.\n\n d. A collection in Syriac belonging perhaps to the 5th or 6th\n century in which other legends about early ages are kept\n together, is called =Spelunca thesaurorum=. We are here\n told about the sepulchre of the patriarch Lamech and the\n treasures preserved there from which the wise men obtained\n the gifts which they presented to the infant Saviour. The\n Ethiopic _Vita Adami_ is an expansion of the book just\n referred to. This book is manifestly a legendary account of\n the changes wrought upon all relations of life in our first\n parents by means of the fall (hence the title: \u201cConflict\n of Adam and Eve\u201d), and Golgotha is named as Adam\u2019s burying\n place. A second and shorter part treats of the Sethite\n patriarchs down to Noah. The still shorter third part\n relates the post-diluvian history down to the time of\n Christ.[83]\n\n \u00a7 32.4. =New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphs.=--The\n Gnostics especially produced these in great abundance. Epiphanius\n speaks of them as numbering thousands. But the Catholics, too,\n were unable to resist the temptation to build up the truth by\n these doubtful means.\n\n I. =Apocryphal Gospels.=\n\n 1. =Complete Gospels= existed in considerable numbers,\n _i.e._ embracing the period of Christ\u2019s earthly\n labours, more or less corrupted in the interests of\n Gnostic or Ebionitic heresy, or independently composed\n Gospels; but only of a few of these do we possess any\n knowledge.[84] The most important of these are the\n following: _The Gosp. of the Egyptians_, esteemed by\n the Encratites, according to Origen one of the writings\n referred to in Luke i. 1; also _the Gosp. of the XII.\n Apostles_, generally called by the Fathers \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3. \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019\n \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 originally written in Aramaic; and finally,\n _the Gosp. of Marcion_ (\u00a7 27, 11). The most important\n of these is the Gospel of the Hebrews, on account of\n its relation to our canonical Gospel of Matthew, which\n is generally supposed to have been written originally\n in Aramaic.[85] Jerome who translated the Hebrew Gospel\n says of it: _Vocatur a plerisque Matth\u00e6i authenticum_;\n but this is not his own opinion, nor was it that of\n Origen and Eusebius. The extant fragments show many\n divergences as well as many similarities, partly in\n the form of apocryphal amplifications, partly of changes\n made for dogmatic reasons.\n\n 2. Gospels dealing with particular Periods--referring to\n the days preceding the birth of Jesus and the period of\n the infancy or to the closing days of His life, where\n the heretical elements are wanting or are subordinated\n to the general interests of Christianity. Of these\n there was a large number and much of their legendary or\n fabulous material, especially about the family history\n of the mother of Jesus (\u00a7 57, 2), has passed over into\n the tradition of the Catholic Church. Among them may be\n mentioned;\n\n a. _The Protevangel. Jacobi minoris_, perhaps the\n oldest, certainly the most esteemed and most widely\n spread, written in Greek, beginning with the story\n of Mary\u2019s birth and reaching down to the death of\n the children of Bethlehem;\n\n b. The _Ev. Pseudo Matth\u00e6i_, similar in its contents,\n but continued down to the period of Jesus\u2019 youth,\n and now existing only in a Lat. translation;\n\n c. The _Ev. de nativitate Mari\u00e6_, only in Lat.,\n containing the history of Mary down to the birth of\n Jesus;\n\n d. The _Hist. Josephi fabri lignarii_ down to his death,\n dating probably from the 4th cent., only now in an\n Arabic version;\n\n e. The _Ev. Infanti\u00e6 Salvatoris_, only in Arabic, a\n compilation with no particular dogmatic tendency;\n\n f. Also the so-called _Ascension of Mary_ (\u00a7 57, 2)\n soon became the subject of apocryphal treatment,\n for which John was claimed as the authority (John\n xix. 26), and is preserved in several Greek, Syriac,\n Arabic and Latin manuscripts;\n\n g. The _Ev. Nicodemi_ (John xix. 39) in Greek and Lat.\n contains two Jewish writings of the 2nd century.\n The first part consists of the _Gesta_ or _Acta\n Pilati_. There can be no doubt of its identity with\n the _Acta Pilati_ quoted by Justin, Tert., Euseb.,\n Epiph. It contains the stories of the canonical\n Gospels variously amplified and an account of\n the judicial proceedings evidently intended to\n demonstrate Jesus\u2019 innocence of the charges brought\n against Him by His enemies. The second part,\n bearing the title _Descensus Christi ad inferos_,\n is of much later origin, telling of the descent\n of Christ into Hades along with two of the saints\n who rose with him (Matt. xxvii. 52), Leucius and\n Carinus, sons of Simeon (Luke ii. 25).[86]\n\n \u00a7 32.5.\n\n II. The numerous =Apocryphal Histories and Legends of the\n Apostles= were partly of heretical, and partly of Catholic,\n origin. While the former have in view the establishing of\n their heretical doctrines and peculiar forms of worship,\n constitution and life by representing them as Apostolic\n institutions, the latter arose mostly out of a local\n patriotic intention to secure to particular churches the\n glory of being founded by an Apostle. Those inspired by\n Gnostic influences far exceed in importance and number\n not only the Ebionitic but also the genuinely Catholic.\n The Manich\u00e6ans especially produced many and succeeded in\n circulating them widely. The more their historico-romantic\n contents pandered to the taste of that age for fantastic\n tales of miracles and visions the surer were they to find\n access among Catholic circles.--A collection of such\n histories under the title of \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd was\n received as canonical by Gnostics and Manich\u00e6ans, and even\n by many of the Church Fathers. Augustine first named as\n its supposed author one Leucius. We find this name some\n decades later in Epiphanius as that of a pupil of John and\n opponent of the Ebionite Christology, and also in Pacianus\n of Barcelona as that of one falsely claimed as an authority\n by the Montanists. According to Photius this collection\n embraced the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas and Paul,\n and the author\u2019s full name was Leucius Carinus, who also\n appears in the second part of the _Acta Pilati_, but in\n quite other circumstances and surroundings. That all the\n five books were composed by one author is not probable;\n perhaps originally only the Acts of John bore the name of\n Leucius, which was subsequently transferred to the whole.\n Zahn\u2019s view, on the other hand, is, that the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, especially the _Acts of John_, was written under\n the falsely assumed name of John\u2019s pupil Leucius, about\n A.D. 130, at a time when the Gnostics had not yet been\n separated from the Church as a heretical sect, was even at\n a later period accepted as genuine by the Catholic church\n teachers notwithstanding the objectionable character of much\n of its contents, its modal docetic Christology and encratite\n Ethics with contempt of marriage, rejection of animal food\n and the use of wine and the demand of voluntary poverty, and\n held in high esteem as a source of the second rank for the\n Apostolic history. Lipsius considers that it was composed in\n the interests of the vulgar Gnosticism (\u00a7 27) in the second\n half of the 2nd, or first half of the 3rd cent., and proves\n that from Eusebius down to Photius, who brands it as \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, the Catholic church teachers\n without exception speak of it as heretical and godless,\n and that the frequent patristic references to the _Histori\u00e6\n ecclesiastici\u00e6_ do not apply to it but to Catholic\n modifications of it, which were regarded as the genuine\n and generally credible original writing of Leucius which\n were wickedly falsified by the Manich\u00e6ans.--Catholic\n modifications of particular Gnostic \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9, as well as\n independent Catholic writings of this sort in Greek are\n still preserved in MS. in great numbers and have for the\n most part been printed. The _Hist. certaminis apostolici_ in\n ten books, which the supposed pupil of the Apostles Abdias,\n first bishop of Babylon, wrote in Hebrew, was translated by\n his pupil Eutropius into Greek and by Julius Africanus into\n Latin.[87]--They are all useless for determining the history\n of the Apostolic Age, although abundantly so used in the\n Catholic church tradition. For the history of doctrines and\n sects, the history of the canon, worship, ecclesiastical\n customs and modes of thought during the 2nd-4th cents., they\n are of the utmost importance.\n\n \u00a7 32.6.\n\n From the many apocryphal monographs still preserved on the\n life, works and martyrdom of the biblical Apostles and their\n coadjutors, in addition to the Pseudo-Clementines already\n discussed in \u00a7 28, 3, the following are the most important.\n\n a. The Greek =Acta Petri et Pauli=. These describe the\n journeys of Paul to Rome, the disputation of the\n two Apostles at Rome with Simon Magus, and the Roman\n martyrdom of both, and constitute the source of the\n traditions regarding Peter and Paul which are at the\n present day regarded in the Roman Catholic Church as\n historical. These Acts, however, as Lipsius has shown,\n are not an original work, but date from about A.D. 160,\n and consist of a Catholic reproduction of Ebionite\n or Anti-Pauline, _Acts of Peter_, with additions from\n Gentile-Christian traditions of Paul. The _Acts of Peter_\n take up the story where the Pseudo-Clementines end, as\n may be seen even from their Catholic reproduction, for\n they make Simon Magus, followed everywhere and overcome\n by the Apostle Peter, at last seek refuge in Rome,\n where, again unmasked by Peter, he met a miserable end\n (\u00a7 25, 2). As the \u039a\u03b7\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 which formed the\n basis of the Pseudo-Clementine writings combats the\n specifically Pauline doctrines as derived from Simon\n Magus (\u00a7 28, 4), so the Acts of Peter identify him\n even personally with Paul, for they maliciously and\n spitefully assign well-known facts from the Apostle\u2019s\n life to Simon Magus, which are _bona fide_ in the\n Catholic reproduction assumed to be genuine works\n of Simon.--The Gnostic _Acts of Peter_ and _Acts\n of Paul_ had wrought up the current Ebionite and\n Catholic traditions about the doings and martyr deaths\n of the two Apostles with fanciful adornments and\n embellishments after the style and in the interests of\n Gnosticism. A considerable fragment of these, purified\n indeed by Catholic hands, is preserved to us in\n the _Passio Petri et Pauli_, to which is attached\n the name of Linus, the pretended successor of\n Peter. The fortunes of the two Apostles are related\n quite independently of one another: Paul makes his\n appearance at Rome only after the death of Peter. Of the\n _non-heretical Acts of Paul_ which according to Eusebius\n were in earlier times received in many churches as holy\n scripture (\u00a7 36, 8), no trace has as yet been discovered.\n\n b. Among the Greek =Acts of John=, the remnants of the\n Leucian \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 preserved in their original\n form deserve to be first mentioned. According to\n Zahn, they are one of the earliest witnesses for\n the genuineness of the Gospel of John, and give the\n deathblow to the theory that with and after the Apostle\n John, there was in Ephesus another John the Presbyter\n distinct from him (\u00a7 16, 2). Lipsius, on the other\n hand, places their composition in the second half of\n the 2nd cent., and deprives them of that significance\n for the life of the Apostle, but admits their great value\n for a knowledge of doctrines, principles and forms of\n worship of the vulgar Gnosticism then widely spread. The\n \u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, greatly esteemed in the Greek church,\n and often translated into other languages, written\n in the 5th cent. by a Catholic hand and ascribed to\n Prochoros [Prochorus] the deacon of Jerusalem (Acts\n vi. 5), is a poetic romance with numerous raisings from\n the dead, exorcisms, etc., almost wholly the creation\n of the writer\u2019s own imagination, without a trace of any\n encratite tendency like the Leucian \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 and without\n any particular doctrinal significance.\n\n c. To the same age and the same Gnostic party as the Leucian\n Acts of John, belong the =Acts of Andrew= preserved\n in many fragments and circulated in various Catholic\n reproductions. Of these latter the most esteemed were\n the _Acts of Andrew and Matthew_ in the city of the\n cannibals.\n\n d. The Catholic reproductions in Greek and Syriac that\n have come down to us of the Leucian =Acts of Thomas= are\n of special value because of the many Gnostic elements\n which, particularly in the Greek, have been allowed to\n remain unchanged in the very imperfectly purified text.\n The scene of the Apostle\u2019s activity is said to be India.\n The central point in his preaching to sinners is the\n doctrine that only by complete abstinence from marriage\n and concubinage can we become at last the partner of\n the heavenly bridegroom (\u00a7 27, 4). A highly poetical\n hymn on the marriage of Sophia (Achamoth) is left\n in the Greek text unaltered, while the Syriac text\n puts the church in place of Sophia. Then we have two\n poetical consecration prayers for baptism and the\n eucharist, in which the Syriac substituted Christ\n for Achamoth. But besides, even in the Syriac text,\n a grandly swelling hymn, which is wanting in the Greek\n text, romances about the fortunes of the soul, which,\n sent from heaven to earth to fetch a pearl watched by\n the serpent forgets its heavenly origin and calling,\n and only remembers this after repeated reminders from\n heaven, etc. Gutschmied has shown it to be probable\n that the history groundwork of the Acts of Thomas is\n borrowed from older Buddhist legends (\u00a7 68, 6).\n\n e. =The Acta Pauli et Thecla=, according to Tertullian and\n Jerome, were composed by a presbyter of Asia Minor who,\n carried away by the mania for literary forging, excused\n himself by saying that he had written _Pauli amore_,\n but was for this nevertheless deprived of his office.\n According to these Acts Thecla, the betrothed bride\n of a young man of importance at Iconium, was won to\n Christianity by a sermon of Paul on continence as a\n condition of a future glorious resurrection, forsook\n her bridegroom, devoted herself to perpetual virginity,\n and attached herself forthwith to the Apostle whose\n bodily presence is described as contemptible,--little,\n bald-headed, large nose, and bandy legs,--but lighted\n up with heavenly grace. Led twice to martyrdom she was\n saved by miraculous divine interposition, first from\n the flames of the pile, then, after having baptized\n herself in the name of Christ by plunging into a pit\n full of water, from the rage of devouring animals;\n whereupon Paul, recognising that sort of baptism in an\n emergency as valid, sent her forth with the commission:\n Go hence and teach the word of God! After converting\n and instructing many, she died in peace in Seleucia.\n Although Jerome treats our book as apocryphal, the\n legends of Thecla as given in it were regarded in the\n West as genuine, and St. Thecla was honoured throughout\n the whole of the Latin middle ages next to the mother\n of Jesus as the most perfect pattern of virginity.\n In the Greek church where we meet with the name first\n in the Symposium of Methodius, the book remained\n unsuspected and its heroine, as \u1f21 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f21\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c2, was honoured still more enthusiastically\n than in the West.\n\n f. The Syriac =Doctrina Add\u00e6i Apost.= was according to\n its own statement deposited in the library of Edessa,\n but allusions to later persons and circumstances show\n that it could not have been written before A.D. 280\n (according to Zahn about A.D. 270-290; acc. to Lipsius\n not before A.D. 360). It assigns the founding of the\n church of Edessa, which is proved to have been not\n earlier than A.D. 170, according to local tradition\n to the Apostle Addai [Add\u00e6i] (in Euseb. and elsewhere,\n Thaddeus: comp. Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18), whom it\n represents as one of the seventy disciples and as\n having been sent by Thomas to Abgar Uchomo in accordance\n with Christ\u2019s promise (\u00a7 13, 2).[88]\n\n \u00a7 32.7.\n\n III. =Apostolic Epistles.= The apocryphal _Epistle of Paul to\n the Laodiceans_ (Col. iv. 16), and that to the _Corinthians_\n suggested by the statement in 1 Cor. v. 9, are spiritless\n compilations from the canonical Epistles. From the\n _Correspondence of Paul with Seneca_, quotations are made by\n Jerome and Augustine. It embraces fourteen short epistles.\n The idea of friendly relations between these two men\n suggested by Acts xviii. 12, Gallio being Seneca\u2019s brother,\n forms the motive for the fiction.\n\n IV. =The apocryphal Apocalypses= that have been preserved are of\n little value. An _Apocalypsis Petri_ was known to Clement of\n Alexandria. The _Apoc. Pauli_ is based on 2 Cor. xii. 2.\n\n V. =Apostolical Constitutions=, comp. \u00a7 43, 4, 5.[89]\n\n \u00a7 32.8. =The Acts of the Martyrs.=--Of the numerous professedly\n contemporary accounts of celebrated martyrs of the 2nd and 3rd\n cents., those adopted by Eusebius in his Church History may be\n accepted as genuine; especially the _Epistle of the Church of\n Smyrna to the Church at Philomelium_ about the persecution which\n it suffered (\u00a7 22, 3); also the _Report of the Church at Lyons\n and Vienne_ to the Christians in Asia and Phrygia about the\n persecution under Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177 (\u00a7 22, 3); and an\n _Epistle of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria_ to Fabian of Antioch\n about the Alexandrian martyrs and confessors during the Decian\n persecution. The Acts of the Martyrs of Scillita are also genuine\n (\u00a7 22, 3); so too the Montanistic History of the sufferings of\n Perpetua, Felicitas, and their companions (\u00a7\u00a7 22, 4; 40, 3); as\n well as the _Acta s. Cypriani_. The main part of the _Martyrdom\n of Justin Martyr_ by Simeon Metaphr. (\u00a7 68, 4) belongs\n probably to the 2nd cent. The _Martyrdom of Ignatius_ (\u00a7 30, 5)\n professedly by his companions in his last journey to Rome, and\n the _Martyrdom of Sympherosa_ in the Tiber, who was put to death\n with her seven sons under Hadrian, as well as all other Acts of\n the Martyrs professedly belonging to the first four centuries,\n are of more than doubtful authenticity.\n\n\n \u00a7 33. THE DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES OF THE\n OLD CATHOLIC AGE.[90]\n\n The development of the system of Christian doctrine must become a\nnecessity when Christianity meeting with pagan culture in the form of\nscience is called upon to defend her claim to be the universal religion.\nIn the first three centuries, however, there was as yet no official\nconstruction and establishment of ecclesiastical doctrine. There\nmust first be a certain measure of free subjective development and\nwrestling with antagonistic views. A universally acknowledged organ is\nwanting, such as that subsequently found in the \u0152cumenical Councils.\nThe persecutions allowed no time and peace for this; and the church had\nenough to do in maintaining what is specifically Christian in opposition\nto the intrusion of such anti-Christian, Jewish and Pagan elements\nas sought to gain a footing in Ebionism and Gnosticism. On the other\nhand, friction and controversy within the church had already begun\nas a preparation for the construction of the ecclesiastical system of\ndoctrine. The _Trinitarian_ controversy was by far the most important,\nwhile the _Chiliastic_ discussions were of significance for Eschatology.\n\n \u00a7 33.1. =The Trinitarian Questions.=--The discussion was mainly\n about the relation of the divine \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1 (the unity of God) to\n the \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 (the Trinitarian being and movement of God). Then\n the relation of the Son or Logos to the Father came decidedly\n to the front. From the time when the more exact determination of\n this relationship came to be discussed, toward the end of the 2nd\n cent., the most eminent teachers of the Catholic church maintained\n stoutly the personal independence of the Logos--=Hypostasianism=.\n But the necessity for keeping this view in harmony with the\n monotheistic doctrine of Christianity led to many errors and\n vacillations. Adopting Philo\u2019s distinction of \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n and \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (\u00a7 10, 1), they for the most part regarded\n the hypostasizing as conditioned first by the creating of the\n world and as coming forth not as a necessary and eternal element\n in the very life of God but as a free and temporal act of the\n divine will. The proper essence of the Godhead was identified\n rather with the Father, and all attributes of the Godhead were\n ascribed to the Son not in a wholly equal measure as to the\n Father, for the word of Christ: \u201cthe Father is greater than I\u201d\n (John xiv. 28), was applied even to the pre-existent state of\n Christ. Still greater was the uncertainty regarding the Holy\n Spirit. The idea of His personality and independence was far less\n securely established; He was much more decidedly subordinated,\n and the functions of inspiration and sanctification proper to\n Him were ascribed to Christ, or He was simply identified with\n the Son of God. The result, however, of such _subordinationist\n hypostasianism_ was that, on the one hand, many church teachers\n laid undue stress on the fundamental anti-pagan doctrine of the\n unity of God, just as on the other hand, many had indulged in\n exaggerated statements about the divinity of Christ. It seemed\n therefore desirable to set aside altogether the question of the\n personal distinction of the Son and Spirit from the Father. This\n happened either in the way clearly favoured by the Ebionites who\n regarded Christ as a mere man, who, like the prophets, though\n in a much higher measure, had been endued with divine wisdom and\n power (_dynamic_ =Monarchianism=), or in a way more accordant\n with the Christian mode of thought, admitting that the fulness\n of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, and either identifying the\n Logos with the Father (_Patripassianism_), or seeing in Him\n only a mode of the activity of the Father (_modal Monarchianism_).\n Monarchianism in all these forms was pronounced heretical by all\n the most illustrious fathers of the 3rd cent., and hypostasianism\n was declared orthodox. But even under hypostasianism an\n element of error crept in at a later period in the form of\n subordinationism, and modal Monarchianism approached nearer\n to the church doctrine by adopting the doctrine of sameness\n of essence (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1) in Son and Father. The orthodox combination\n of the two opposites was reached in the 3rd cent, in _homoousian\n hypostasianism_, but only in the 4th cent. attained universal\n acceptance (\u00a7 50).\n\n \u00a7 33.2. =The Alogians.=--Soon after A.D. 170 in Asia Minor we\n meet with the Alogians as the first decided opponents from within\n the church of Logos doctrine laid down in the Gospel by John\n and the writings of the Apologists. They started in diametrical\n opposition to the chiliasm of the Montanists and their claims\n to prophetic gifts, and were thus led not only to repudiate the\n Apocalypse but also the Gospel of John; the former on account of\n its chiliast-prophetic contents which embraced so much that was\n unintelligible, yea absurd and untrue; the latter, first of all\n on account of the use the Montanists made of its doctrine of the\n Paraclete in support of their prophetic claims (\u00a7 40, 1), but\n also on account of its seeming contradictions of and departures\n from the narratives of the Synoptists, and finally, on account\n of its Logos doctrine in which the immediate transition from the\n incarnation of the Logos to the active life of Christ probably\n seemed to them too closely resembling docetic Gnosticism. They\n therefore attributed to the Gnosticizing Judaist, Cerinthus, the\n authorship both of the Fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse. Of\n their own Christological theories we have no exact information.\n Iren\u00e6us and Hippolytus deal mildly with them and recognise\n them as members of the Catholic church. It is Epiphanius who\n first gives them the equivocal designation of Alogians (which\n may either be \u201cdeniers of the Logos\u201d or \u201cthe irrational\u201d),\n denouncing them as heretical rejecters of the Logos doctrine\n and the Logos-Gospel. This is the first instance which we have of\n historical criticism being exercised in the Church with reference\n to the biblical books.\n\n \u00a7 33.3. =The Theodotians and Artemonites.=--Epiphanius describes\n the sect of the Theodotians at Rome as an \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. The main source of information about them is the Little\n Labyrinth (\u00a7 31, 3), and next to it Hippolytus in his Syntagma,\n quoted by the Pseudo-Tertullian and Epiphanius, and in his\n Elenchus. The founder of this sect, =Theodotus= \u1f41 \u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, _the\n Tanner_, a man well trained in Greek culture, came A.D. 190 to\n Byzantium where, during the persecution, he denied Christ, and\n on this account changed his residence to Rome and devoted himself\n here to the spread of his dynamic Monarchianism. He maintained\n \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd,--_Spiritu quidem sancto\n natum ex virgine, sed hominem nudum nulla alia pr\u00e6 c\u00e6teris nisi\n sola justit\u00e6 auctoritate_. He sought to justify his views by\n a one-sided interpretation of scripture passages referring to\n the human nature of Christ.[91] But since he acknowledged the\n supernatural birth of Christ as well as the genuineness of the\n Gospel of John, and in other respects agreed with his opponents,\n he could still represent himself as standing on the basis of\n the Old Catholic _Regula fidei_ (\u00a7 35, 2). Nevertheless the\n Roman bishop Victor (A.D. 189-199) excommunicated him and his\n followers. The most distinguished among his disciples was a\n _second_ =Theodotus= \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, the _Money-changer_. By an\n exegesis of Heb. v. 6, 10; vi. 20; vii. 3, 17, he sought to prove\n that Melchisedec was \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 and more glorious than\n Christ; the former was the original type, the latter only the\n copy; the former was intercessor before God for the angels,\n the latter only for men; the origin of the former is secret,\n because truly heavenly, that of Christ open, because born of\n Mary. The later heresiologists therefore designate his followers\n Melchisedecians. Laying hold upon the theory \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u1fb3 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 which, according\n to Epiphanius, was held even by Catholics, and also, like the\n Shepherd of Hermas, identifying the Son of God with the Holy\n Spirit that descended in baptism on the man Jesus, Theodotus\n seems from those two points of view to have proceeded to\n teach, that the historical Christ, because operated upon only\n dynamically by the Holy Spirit or the Son of God, was inferior to\n the purely heavenly Melchisedec who was himself the very eternal\n Son of God. The reproaches directed against the Theodotians by\n their opponents were mainly these: that instead of the usual\n allegorical exegesis they used only a literal and grammatical,\n that they practised an arbitrary system of Textual criticism, and\n that instead of holding to the philosophy of the divine Plato,\n they took their wisdom from the empiricists (Aristotle, Euclid,\n Galen, etc.), and sought by such objectionable means to support\n their heretical views. We have thus probably to see in them a\n group of Roman theologians, who, towards the close of the 2nd\n cent. and the beginning of the 3rd cent. maintained exegetical\n and critical principles essentially the same as those which the\n Antiochean school with greater clearness and definiteness set\n forth toward the end of the 3rd cent. (\u00a7\u00a7 31, 1; 47, 1). The\n attempt, however, which they made to found an independent sect\n in Rome about A.D. 210 was an utter failure. According to the\n report of the Little Labyrinth, they succeeded in getting for\n their bishop a weak-minded confessor called Natalius. Haunted\n by visions of judgment and beaten sore one night by good angels\n till in a miserable plight, he hasted on the following morning\n to cast himself at the feet of bishop Zephyrinus (A.D. 199-217),\n successor of Victor, and showing his stripes he begged for\n mercy and restoration.--The last of the representatives of the\n Theodotians in Rome, and that too under this same Zephyrinus, was\n a certain =Artemon= or Artemas. He and his followers maintained\n that their own doctrine (which cannot be very exactly determined\n but was also of the dynamic order) had been recognised in Rome\n as orthodox from the time of the Apostles down to that of bishop\n Victor, and was first condemned by his successor Zephyrinus. This\n assertion cannot be said to be altogether without foundation in\n view, on the one hand, of the agreement above referred to between\n Theodotus the younger and the Roman Hermas, and on the other hand,\n of the fact that the Roman bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus had\n passed over to No\u00ebtian _Modalism_. Artemon must have lived at\n least until A.D. 260, when Paul of Samosata (\u00a7 33, 8), who also\n maintained fellowship with the excommunicated Artemonites in\n Rome, conducted a correspondence with him.\n\n \u00a7 33.4. =Praxeas and Tertullian.=--Patripassianism, which\n represented the Father Himself as becoming man and suffering in\n Christ, may be characterized as the precursor and first crude\n form of Modalism. It also had its origin during the 2nd cent.,\n in that same intellectually active church of Asia Minor, and\n from thence the movement spread to Rome, where after a long and\n bitter struggle it secured a footing in the 3rd cent.--=Praxeas=,\n a confessor of Asia Minor and opponent of Montanism, was its first\n representative at Rome, where unopposed he expounded his views\n about A.D. 190. As he supported the Roman bishop Victor in his\n condemnation of Montanism (\u00a7 40, 2), so he seems to have won\n the bishop\u2019s approval for his Christological theory.[92] Perhaps\n also the excommunication which was at this time uttered against\n the dynamic Monarchian, Theodotus the Elder, was the result of\n the bishop\u2019s change of views. From Rome Praxeas betook himself,\n mainly in the interest of his Anti-Montanist crusade, to Carthage,\n and there also won adherents to his Christology. Meanwhile,\n however, Tertullian returned to Carthage, and as a convert\n to Montanism, hurled against Praxeas and his followers a\n controversial treatise, in which he laid bare with acute\n dialectic the weaknesses and inconsistencies, as well as the\n dangerous consequences of their theory. Just like the Alogians,\n Praxeas and his adherents refused to admit the doctrine of the\n Logos into their Christology, and feared that it in connection\n with the doctrine of the hypostasis would give an advantage to\n Gnosticism. In the interests of monotheism, as well as of the\n worship of Christ, they maintained the perfect identity of Father\n and Son. God became the Son by the assumption of the flesh;\n under the concept of the Father therefore falls the divinity,\n the spirit; under that of the Son, the humanity, the flesh of\n the Redeemer.--=Tertullian= himself in his Hypostasianism had not\n wholly got beyond the idea of subordinationism, but he made an\n important advance in this direction by assuming three stages in\n the hypostasizing of the Son (_Filiatio_). The first stage is\n the eternal immanent state of being of the Son in the Father; the\n second is the forthcoming of the Son alongside of the Father for\n the purpose of creating the world; and the third is the going\n forth of the Son into the world by means of the incarnation.\n\n \u00a7 33.5. =The No\u00ebtians and Hippolytus.=--The Patripassian\n standpoint was maintained also by =No\u00ebtus= of Smyrna, who summed\n up his Christological views in the sentence: the Son of God is\n His own, and not another\u2019s Son. One of his pupils, _Epigonus_,\n in the time of bishop Zephyrinus brought this doctrine to Rome,\n where a No\u00ebtian sect was formed with Cleomenes at its head.\n Sabellius too, who in A.D. 215 came to Rome from Ptolemais in\n Egypt, attached himself to it, but afterwards constructed an\n independent system of doctrine in the form of a more speculative\n Modalism. The most vigorous opponent of the No\u00ebtians was the\n celebrated presbyter =Hippolytus= (\u00a7 31, 3). He strongly insisted\n upon the hypostasis of the Son and of the Spirit, and claimed\n for them divine worship. But inasmuch as he maintained in all\n its strictness the unity of God, he too was unable to avoid\n subordinating the Son under the Father. The Son, he taught, owed\n His hypostasizing to the will of the Father; the Father commands\n and the Son obeys; the perfect Logos was the Son from eternity,\n but \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2,\n therefore in a hypostasis, which He became only at the creation\n of the world, so that He became perfect Son first in the\n incarnation. Bishop Zephyrinus, on the other hand, was not\n inclined to bear hard upon the No\u00ebtians, but sought in the\n interests of peace some meeting-point for the two parties. The\n conflagration fairly broke out under his successor, Callistus\n (A.D. 217-222; comp. \u00a7 41, 1). Believing that truth and error\n were to be found on both sides he defined his own position thus:\n God is a spirit without parts, filling all things, giving life\n to all, who as such is called Logos, and only in respect of name\n is distinguished as Father and Son. The Pneuma become incarnate\n in the Virgin is personally and essentially identical with the\n Father. That which has thereby become manifest, the man Jesus,\n is the Son. It therefore cannot be said that the Father as such\n has suffered, but rather that the Father has suffered in and\n with the Son. Decidedly Monarchian as this formula of compromise\n undoubtedly is, it seems to have afforded the bridge upon which\n the official Roman theology crossed over to the homoousian\n Hypostasianism which forty years later won the day (\u00a7 33, 7).\n Among the opposing parties it found no acceptance. Hippolytus\n denounced the bishop as a No\u00ebtian, while the No\u00ebtians nicknamed\n him a Dytheist. The result was that the two party leaders,\n Sabellius and Hippolytus, were excommunicated. The latter formed\n the company of his adherents in Rome into a schismatic sect.\n\n \u00a7 33.6. =Beryllus and Origen.=--=Beryllus of Bostra=[93] in\n Arabia also belonged to the Patripassians; but he marks the\n transition to a nobler Modalism, for though he refuses to the\n deity of Christ the \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, he designates it \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\n and sees in it a new form of the manifestation (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd) of\n God. In regard to him an Arabian Synod was held in A.D. 244,\n to which =Origen= was invited. Convinced by him of his error,\n Beryll [Beryllus] retracted.--All previous representatives of\n the hypostasis of the Logos had understood his hypostatizing\n as happening in time for the purpose of the creation and the\n incarnation. =Origen= removed this restriction when he enunciated\n the proposition: The Son is from eternity begotten of the Father\n and so from eternity an hypostasis. The generation of the Son\n took not place simply as the condition of creation, but as of\n itself necessary, for where there is light there must be the\n shedding forth of rays. But because the life of God is bound\n to no time, the objectivizing of His life in the Son must also\n lie outside of all time. It is not therefore an act of God\n accomplished once and for ever, but an eternally continued\n exercise of living power (\u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fb2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03bd). Origen did not\n indeed get beyond subordinationism, but he restricted it within\n the narrowest possible limits. He condemns the expression that\n the Son is \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, but only in opposition\n to the Gnostic theories of emanation. He maintained a \u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, but only in opposition to the \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 in the\n Patripassian sense. He teaches a generation of the Son \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, but only because he sees in Him the objectified\n divine will. He calls Him a \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, but only in so far as He is\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, not \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, though indeed the Son is \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1,\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Thus what he teaches is not a\n subordination of essence or nature, but only of existence or\n origin.\n\n \u00a7 33.7. =Sabellius and Dionysius of Alex. and Dionysius of\n Rome.=--We have already seen that =Sabellius= had founded in\n Rome a speculative Manich\u00e6an system, which found much favour\n among the bishops of his native region. His assigning an essential\n and necessary place in his system to the Holy Spirit indicates\n an important advance. God is a unity (\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2) admitting of no\n distinctions, resting in Himself as \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd coming forth\n out of Himself (for the purpose of creation) as \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd. In\n the course of the world\u2019s development the Monas for the sake of\n redemption assumes necessarily three different forms of being\n (\u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1), each of which embraces in it the complete\n fulness of the Monas. They are not \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, but \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1, masks,\n we might say roles, which the God who manifests Himself in the\n world assumes in succession. After the _prosopon_ of the Father\n accomplished its work in the giving of the law, it fell back into\n its original condition; advancing again through the incarnation\n as Son, it returns by the ascension into the absolute being of\n the Monas; it reveals itself finally as the Holy Spirit to return\n again, after securing the perfect sanctification of the church,\n into the Monas that knows no distinctions, there to abide through\n all eternity. This process is characterized by Sabellius as\n an expansion (\u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) and contraction (\u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae). By way of\n illustration he uses the figure of the sun \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u1fb3\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, namely \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c7\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd.--At a Synod of\n Alexandria in A.D. 261 =Dionysius the Great= (\u00a7 31, 6) entered\n the lists against the Sabellianism of the Egyptian bishops, and\n with well-intentioned zeal employed subordinationist expressions\n in a highly offensive way (\u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f04\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2,--\u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f62\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9). When bishop\n =Dionysius of Rome= (A.D. 259-268) was informed of these\n proceedings he condemned his Alexandrian colleague\u2019s modes of\n expression at a Synod at Rome in A.D. 262, and issued a tract\n (\u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae), in which against Sabellius he affirmed hypostasianism\n and against the Alexandrians, notwithstanding the suspicion of\n Manich\u00e6anism that hung about it, the doctrine of the \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\n and the eternal generation of the Son. With a beautiful modesty\n Dionysius of Alexandria retracted his unhappily chosen phrases\n and declared himself in thorough agreement with the Roman\n exposition of doctrine.\n\n \u00a7 33.8. =Paul of Samosata.=--In Rome and throughout the West\n general dynamical Monarchianism expired with Artemon and his\n party. In the East, however, it was revived by Paul of Samosata,\n in A.D. 260 bishop of the Gr\u00e6co-Syrian capital Antioch, which,\n however, was then under the rule of Queen Zenobia of Palmyra.\n Attaching himself to the other dynamists, especially the\n Theodotians and Artemonites, he went in many respects beyond them.\n Maintaining as they did the unipersonality of God (\u1f13\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd),\n he yet admitted a distinction of Father, Son (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) and Spirit\n (\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1) the two last, however, being essentially identical\n attributes of the first, and also the distinction of the\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 from the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, the one being the\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 operative in the prophets, the other the\n \u1f10\u03c0. \u1f00\u03bd\u03c5\u03c0. latent in God. Further, while placing like the dynamists\n the personality of Christ in His humanity and acknowledging\n His supernatural birth from the Holy Spirit by the Virgin, he\n conceived of Him, like the modern Socinians, as working the\n way upward, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, _i.e._ by reason of His\n unique excellence to divine rank and the obtaining of the divine\n name.--Between A.D. 264-269 the Syrian bishops held three large\n Synods in regard to him at Antioch, to which also many other\n famous bishops of the East were invited. The first two were\n without result, for he knew how to conceal the heterodox character\n of his views. It was only at the third that the presbyter Malchion,\n a practised dialectician and formerly a rhetorician, succeeded\n in unmasking him at a public disputation. The Synod now declared\n him excommunicated and deprived him of his office, and also\n transmitted to all the catholic churches, first of all to Rome\n and Alexandria, the records of the disputation together with\n a complete report in which he was described as a proud, vain,\n pompous, covetous and even immoral man (\u00a7 39, 3). Nevertheless\n by the favour of the Queen he kept possession of his bishopric,\n and holding a high office at the court he exercised not only\n spiritual functions but also great civil authority. But when\n Zenobia was overcome by Aurelian in A.D. 272, the rest of the\n bishops accused him before the pagan emperor, who decided that\n the ecclesiastical buildings should be made over to that one\n of the contending bishops whom the Christian bishops of Rome\n and Italy should recognise. In these conflicts undoubtedly a\n national and political antagonism lay behind the dogmatic and\n ecclesiastical dispute (\u00a7 31, 9 e).--At the Synod of A.D. 269\n the expression \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, which since it had been first used by\n Sabellius was always regarded with suspicion in church circles,\n was dragged into the debate and expressly condemned; and so it is\n doubtful whether Paul himself had employed it, or whether, on the\n contrary, he wished to charge his opponents with heresy as being\n wont to use this term.\n\n \u00a7 33.9. =Chiliasm= or the doctrine of an earthly reign of the\n Messiah in the last times full of splendour and glory for His\n people arose out of the literal and realistic conception of the\n Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. The adoption of the\n period of a thousand years for its duration rested on the idea\n that as the world had been created in six days, so, according\n to Ps. xc. 4 and 2 Pet. iii. 8, its history would be completed\n in six thousand years. Under the oppression of the Roman rule\n this notion came to be regarded as a fundamental doctrine of\n Jewish faith and hope (Matt. xx. 21; Acts i. 6). The Apocalypse\n of St. John was chiefly influential in elaborating the Christian\n chiliastic theory. In chap. xx. under the guise of vision the\n doctrine is set forth that after the finally victorious conflict\n of the present age there will be a first and partial resurrection,\n the risen saints shall reign with Christ a thousand years, and\n then after another revolt of Satan that is soon suppressed the\n present age will be closed in the second universal resurrection,\n the judgment of the world and the creation of new heavens and a\n new earth. What fantastic notions of the glory of the thousand\n years\u2019 reign might be developed from such passages, is seen in\n the traditional saying of the Lord given by Papias (_Iren._,\n v. 33) about the wonderful fruitfulness of the earth during the\n millennium: one vine-stock will bear 10,000 stems (palmites),\n each stem will have 10,000 branches (bracchia), each branch\n 10,000 twigs (flagella), each twig 10,000 clusters (botrus), each\n cluster 10,000 grapes, and every grape will yield 25 measures\n of wine; \u201c_et quum eorum apprehenderit aliquis Sanctorum,\n alius clamabit: Botrus ego melior sum, me sume, per me Dominum\n benedic_!\u201d After the time of Papias Chiliasm became the favourite\n doctrine of the Christians who under the severe pressure of\n pagan persecution longed for the early return of the Lord. The\n Apologists of the 2nd century do indeed pass it over in silence,\n but only perhaps because it seemed to them impolitic to give\n it a marked prominence in works directly addressed to the pagan\n rulers; at least Justin Martyr does not scruple in the _Dialog.\n c. Tryph._ addressed to another class of readers to characterize\n it as a genuinely orthodox doctrine. Asia Minor was the chief\n seat of these views, where, as we have seen (\u00a7 40), Montanism\n also in its most fanatical and exaggerated form was elevated\n into a fundamental article of the Christian faith. Iren\u00e6us\n enthusiastically adopted chiliastic views and gave a full though\n fairly moderate exposition of them in his great work against the\n Gnostics (v. 24-36). Tertullian also championed these notions,\n at the same time rejecting many outgrowths of a grossly carnal\n nature (_Adv. Marc._, iii. 24, and in a work no longer extant,\n _De spe fidelium_). The most vigorous opposition is shown to\n Chiliasm by the Alogians, Praxeas the Patripassian and Caius\n of Rome, who were also the determined opponents of Montanism.\n The last named indeed went so far in his controversial writing\n against Proclus the Montanist, as to ascribe the authorship of\n the Johannine Apocalypse to the heretic Cerinthus (\u00a7 27, 1).\n The Alexandrian spiritualists too, especially Origen (_De Prin._,\n ii. 11), were decided opponents of every form of Chiliasm and\n explained away the Scripture passages on which it was built by\n means of allegorical interpretation. Nevertheless even in Egypt\n it had numerous adherents. At their head about the middle of\n the 3rd cent. stood the learned bishop Nepos of Arsinoe, whose\n \u1f1c\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd directed against the Alexandrians is no\n longer extant. After his death his party under the leadership of\n the presbyter Coracion separated from the church of Alexandria,\n the bishop Dionysius the Great going down himself expressly\n to Arsinoe in order to heal the breach. In a conference of the\n leaders of the parties continued for three days he secured the\n sincere respect of the dissentients by his counsels, and even\n Coracion was induced to make a formal recantation. Dionysius\n then wrote for the confirmation of the converts his book: \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd. But not long after, opposition to the spiritualism of\n the school of Origen made Methodius, the bishop of Olympus, play\n the part of a new herald of Chiliasm, and in the West, Commodian,\n Victor of Poitiers, and especially Lactantius, became its zealous\n advocates in a particularly materialistic form. Its day, however,\n was already past. What tended most to work its complete overthrow\n was the course of events under Constantine. Amid the rejoicings\n of the national church as a present reality, interest in the\n expectation of a future thousand years\u2019 reign was lost. Among\n post-Constantine church teachers only Apollinaris the Younger\n favoured Chiliasm (\u00a7 47, 5). Jerome indeed, in deference to the\n cloud of witnesses from the ancient church, does not venture to\n pronounce it heretical, but treats it with scornful ridicule;\n and Augustine (_De civ. Dei_), though at an earlier period not\n unfavourable to it, sets it aside by showing that the scriptural\n representations of the thousand years\u2019 reign are to be understood\n as referring to the church obtaining dominion through the\n overthrow of the pagan Roman empire, the thousand years being a\n period of indefinite duration, and the first resurrection being\n interpreted of the reception of saints and martyrs into heaven\n as sharers in the glory of Christ.--See Candlish, \u201cThe Kingdom of\n God.\u201d Edin., 1884. Especially pp. 409-415, \u201cAugustine on the City\n of God.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n IV. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, LIFE AND DISCIPLINE.[94]\n\n\n \u00a7 34. THE INNER ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH.[95]\n\n From the beginning of the 2nd cent. the episcopal constitution\nwas gradually built up, and the superiority of one bishop over the\nwhole body of the other presbyters (\u00a7 17, 6) won by degrees universal\nacceptance. The hierarchical tendency inherent in it gained fresh\nimpetus from two causes: (1) from the gradual disappearance of the\ncharismatic endowments which had been continued from the Apostolic\nAge far down into post-Apostolic times, and the disposition of\necclesiastical leaders more and more to monopolise the function\nof teaching; and (2) from the reassertion of the idea of a special\npriesthood as a divine institution and the adoption of Old Testament\nconceptions of church officers. The antithesis of _Ordo_ or \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n(sc. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) and _Plebs_ or \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2 (\u03bb\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u03af) when once expression had\nbeen given to it, tended to become even more marked and exclusive. In\nconsequence of the successful extension of the churches the functions,\nrights and duties of the existing spiritual offices came to be more\nprecisely determined and for the discharge of lower ecclesiastical\nservice new offices were created. Thus arose the partition of the\nclergy into _Ordines majores_ and _Ordines minores_. As it was in the\nprovincial capital that common councils were held, which were convened,\nat first in consequence of the requirements of the hour, afterwards as\nregular institutions (Provincial Synods), the bishop of the particular\ncapital assumed the president\u2019s chair. Among the metropolitans\npre-eminence was claimed by churches founded by Apostles (_sedes\napostolic\u00e6_), especially those of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria,\nEphesus and Corinth. To the idea of the =unity and catholicity of\nthe church=, which was maintained and set forth with ever increasing\ndecision, was added the idea of the Apostle Peter being the single\nindividual representative of the church. This latter notion was founded\non the misunderstood word of the Lord, Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Rome, as the\ncapital of the world, where Peter and Paul suffered death as martyrs\n(\u00a7 16, 1), arrogated to itself the name of _Chair_ (Cathedra) _of Peter_\nand transferred the idea of the individual representation of the church\nto its bishops as the supposed successors of Peter.\n\n \u00a7 34.1. =The Continuation of Charismatic Endowments into\n Post-Apostolic Times= has, by means of the Apostolic Didache\n recently rendered accessible to us (\u00a7 30, 7), not only received\n new confirmation, but their place in the church and their relation\n to it has been put in a far clearer light. In essential agreement\n with 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11 (\u00a7 17, 5), it presents to\n us the three offices of Apostle, Prophet and Teacher. The Pastors\n and Teachers of the Epistle to the Ephesians, as well as of\n the passage from Corinthians, are grouped together in one; and\n the Evangelists, that is, helpers of the Apostles, appear now\n after the decease of the original Apostles, as their successors\n and heirs of their missionary calling under the same title of\n Apostles. Hermas indeed speaks only of Apostles and Teachers;\n but he himself appears as a Prophet and so witnesses to the\n continuance of that office. The place and task of the three\n offices are still the same as described in \u00a7 17, 5 from Eph.\n iv. 11, 12 and ii. 20. These three were not chosen like the\n bishops and deacons by the congregations, but appointment and\n qualifications for office were dependent on a divine call,\n somewhat like that of Acts xiii. 2-4, or on a charism that had\n evidently and admittedly been bestowed on them. They are further\n not permanent officials in particular congregations but travel\n about in the exercise of their teaching function from church to\n church. Prophets and Teachers, however, but not Apostles, might\n settle down permanently in a particular church.--In reference\n exclusively to the =Apostles= the Didache teaches as follows:\n In the case of their visiting an already constituted church\n they should stay there at furthest only two days and should\n accept provision only for one day\u2019s journey but upon no account\n any money (Matt. x. 9, 10). Eusebius too, in his Ch. Hist.,\n iii. 37, tells that after the death of the twelve the gospel was\n successfully spread abroad in all lands by means of itinerating\n Apostolic men, whom he designates, however, by the old name of\n evangelists, and praises them for having according to the command\n of the Lord (Matt. x. and Luke x.) parted their possessions among\n the poor, and having adhered strictly to the rule of everywhere\n laying only the foundations of the faith and leaving the further\n care of what they had planted to the settled pastors.--The\n Didache assigns the second place to the =Prophets=: they too,\n inasmuch as like the Apostles they are itinerants, are without\n a fixed residence; but they are distinguished from the latter by\n having their teaching functions directed not to the founding of\n a church but only to its edification, and in this respect they\n are related to the Teachers. Their distinguishing characteristic,\n however, is the possession of the charism of prophesying in the\n wider sense, whereas the Teachers\u2019 charism consisted in the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 and the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (\u00a7 17, 1). When they enter into a\n church as \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, that church may not, according\n to the Didache, in direct opposition to 1 Thess. v. 21; 1 Cor.\n xii. 10; xiv. 29; 1 John iv. 1, exercise the right of trying\n their doctrine, for that would be to commit the sin against the\n Holy Ghost who speaks through them, but the church may inquire\n of their life, and thus distinguish true prophets from the\n false. If they wish to settle down in a particular church, that\n church should make provision for their adequate maintenance by\n surrendering to them, after the pattern of the Mosaic law, all\n firstlings of cattle, and first fruits of grain and oil and wine,\n and also the first portion of their other possessions, \u201cfor they\n are your high priests.\u201d This phrase means either, that for them\n they are with their prophetic gift what the high priests of the\n old covenant with their Urim and Thummim were to ancient Israel,\n or, as Harnack understands it on the basis of chap. x. 7: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, while ordinary\n ministers had to confine themselves to the usual formularies,\n that they were pre-eminently entrusted with the administration of\n the Lord\u2019s Supper which was the crowning part of the worship. If,\n however, there were no Prophets present, these first fruits were\n to be distributed among the poor.--The rank also of =Teachers=\n (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, Doctores) is still essentially the same as described\n in \u00a7 17, 5. As their constant association with the Apostles\n and Prophets would lead us to expect, they also were properly\n itinerant teachers, who like the Prophets had to minister to\n the establishment of existing churches in the Christian life,\n in faith and in hope. But when they settled down in a particular\n church, whether in consequence of that church\u2019s special needs, or\n with its approval in accordance with their own wish, that church\n had to provide for their maintenance according to the principle\n that the labourer is worthy of his reward. The author of the\n Didache, as appears from the whole tenor of his book, was himself\n such a teacher. Hermas, who at the same time makes no mention of\n the Prophets, speaks only twice and that quite incidentally of\n the Teachers, without indicating particularly their duties and\n privileges.--The continuance of those three extraordinary offices\n down to the end of the 2nd cent. was of the utmost importance.\n The numerous churches scattered throughout all lands had not\n as yet a firmly established New Testament Canon nor any one\n general symbol in the form of a confession of faith, and so\n were without any outward bond of union: but these Teachers, by\n means of their itinerant mode of life and their authoritative\n position, which was for the first time clearly demonstrated by\n Harnack, contributed powerfully to the development of the idea\n of ecclesiastical unity. According to Harnack, the composition\n of the so-called Catholic Epistles and similar early Christian\n literature is to be assigned to them, and in this way he would\n account for the Apostolic features which are discoverable\n in these writings. He would not, however, attribute to them\n the fiction of claiming for their works an Apostolic origin,\n but supposes that the subsequently added superscriptions\n and the author\u2019s name in the address rest upon an erroneous\n tradition.--The gradual disappearance of charismatic offices was\n mainly the result of the endeavour, that became more and more\n marked during the 2nd cent., after the adoption of current social\n usages and institutions, which necessarily led to a repression\n of the enthusiastic spirit out of which those offices had sprung\n and which could scarcely reconcile itself with what seemed\n to it worldly compromises and concessions. The fanatical and\n eccentric pretension to prophetic gifts in Montanism, with its\n uncompromising rigour (\u00a7 40) and its withdrawal from church\n fellowship, gave to these charismatic offices their deadly blow.\n A further cause of their gradual decay may certainly be found in\n their relation to the growing episcopal hierarchy. At the time of\n the Didache, which knows nothing of a subordination of presbyters\n under the bishop (indeed like Phil. i. 1, it makes no mention\n of presbyters), this relation was one of thoroughly harmonious\n co-ordination and co-operation. In the 13th chap. the exhortation\n is given to choose only faithful and approved men as bishops\n and deacons, \u201cfor they too discharge for you \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd and so they represent along with those\n the \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 among you.\u201d The service of prophets, according\n to the Didache, was pre-eminently that of the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 and so\n there was entrusted to them the consecration of the elements\n in the Lord\u2019s Supper. This service the bishops and deacons\n discharged, inasmuch as, in addition to their own special duties\n as presidents of the congregation charged with its administration\n and discipline, they were required in the absence of prophets\n to conduct the worship. Then also they had to officiate as\n Teachers (1 Tim. v. 17) when occasion required and the necessary\n qualifications were possessed. But this peaceful co-operating\n of the two orders undoubtedly soon and often gave place to\n unseemly rivalry, and the hierarchical spirit obtruding itself\n in the _Protepiscopate_ (\u00a7 17, 6), which first of all reduced\n its colleagues from their original equality to a position of\n subordination soon asserted itself over against the extraordinary\n offices which had held a place co-ordinate with and in the\n department of doctrine and worship even more authoritative and\n important than that of the bishops themselves. They were only too\n readily successful in having their usurpation of their offices\n recognised as bearing the authority of a divine appointment.\n These soon completed the theory of the hierarchical and\n monarchical rank of the clergy and the absurd pretension to\n having obtained from God the absolute fulness of His Spirit and\n absolute sovereign power.\n\n \u00a7 34.2. =The Development of the Episcopal Hierarchy= was the\n result of an evolution which in existing circumstances was not\n only natural but almost necessary. In the deliberations and\n consultations of the college of presbyters constituting the\n ecclesiastical court, just as in every other such assembly, it\n must have been the invariable custom to confer upon one of their\n number, generally the eldest, or at least the one among them most\n highly esteemed, the presidency, committing to him the duty of\n the orderly conduct of the debates, as well as the formulating,\n publishing and enforcing of their decrees. This president must\n soon have won the pre-eminent authority of a _primus inter pares_,\n and have come to be regarded as an \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 of higher rank.\n From such a primacy to supremacy, and from that to a monarchical\n position, the progress was natural and easy. In proportion as the\n official authority, the \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03ae, concentrated itself more and\n more in the president, the official title, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, at first by\n way of eminence, then absolutely, was appropriated to him. This\n would be all the more easily effected since, owing to the twofold\n function of the office (\u00a7 17, 5, 6), he who presided in the\n administrative council still bore the title of \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. It\n was not accomplished, however, without a long continued struggle\n on the part of the presbyters who were relegated to a subordinate\n rank, which occasioned keen party contentions and divisions\n lasting down even into the 3rd century (\u00a7 41). But the need of\n the churches to have in each one man to direct and control was\n mightier than this opposition. That need was most keenly felt\n when the church was threatened with division and dissolution\n by the spread of heretical and separatist tendencies. The need\n of a single president in the local churches was specially felt\n in times of violent persecution, and still more just after the\n persecution had ceased when multitudes who had fallen away during\n the days of trial sought to be again restored to the membership\n of the church (\u00a7 39, 2), in order to secure the reorganization\n of the institution which, by violence from without and weakness\n within, had been so sorely rent. Both in the Old and in the New\n Testament there seemed ground for regarding the order of things\n that had grown up in the course of time as _jure divino_ and\n as existing from the beginning. After the idea of a distinct\n sacerdotal class had again found favour, the distribution of\n the clergy in the Old Testament into High priest, priests and\n Levites was supposed to afford an exact analogy to that of\n the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate. To effect this the\n charismatic offices of teaching had to be ignored and their\n divinely ordained functions had to be set aside. It was even\n supposed that the relative ranks in the offices of the Christian\n church must be determined by the corresponding orders in the Old\n Testament. Then in the gospels, it seemed as if the relations of\n Christ to His disciples corresponded to that of the bishop to the\n presbyters; and from the Acts of the Apostles the preponderating\n authority of James at the head of the Jerusalem presbytery or\n eldership (\u00a7 17, 2) might be used as a witness for the supremacy\n of the bishop. The oldest and most important contender for the\n monarchical rank of the bishop is the author of the _Ignatian\n Epistles_ (\u00a7 30, 5). In every bishop he sees the representative\n of Christ, and in the college of presbyters the representatives\n of the Apostles. In the _Clementines_ too the bishop appears\n as \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2. This view also finds\n expression in the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (2, 26), and even in\n the writings of _Dionysius the Areopagite_ (\u00a7 47, 11). Another\n theory, according to which the bishops are successors of the\n Apostles and as such heirs of the absolute dominion conferred in\n Matt. xiv. 18, 19 upon Peter and through him on all the Apostles,\n sprang up in the West and gained currency by means of Cyprian\u2019s\n eloquent enunciation of it (\u00a7 34, 7).\n\n \u00a7 34.3. =The Regular Ecclesiastical Offices of the Old Catholic\n Age.= The =Ordines Majores= embraced the Bishops, Presbyters\n and Deacons. Upon the =Bishop=, elected by the people and the\n clergy in common, there devolved in his monarchical position the\n supreme conduct of all the affairs of the church. The exclusively\n episcopal privileges were these: the ordination of presbyters\n and deacons, the absolving of the penitent, according to strict\n rule also the consecration of the eucharistic elements, in later\n times also the right of speaking at Synods, and in the West also\n the confirmation of the baptised. In large cities where a single\n church was no longer sufficient daughter churches were instituted.\n Country churches founded outside of the cities were supplied\n with presbyters and deacons from the city. If they increased\n in importance, they chose for themselves their own bishop, who\n remained, however, as \u03a7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 dependent upon the city bishop.\n Thus distinctly official episcopal dioceses came to be formed.\n And just as the city bishops had a pre-eminence over the country\n bishops, so also the bishops of the chief cities of provinces\n soon came as metropolitans to have a pre-eminence over those\n of other cities. To them was granted the right of calling and\n presiding at the Synods, and of appointing and ordaining the\n bishops of their province. The name Metropolitan, however, was\n first used in the Acts of the Council of Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325.--The\n =Presbyters= were now only the advisers and assistants of the\n bishop, whose counsel and help he accepted just in such ways and\n at such times as seemed to him good. They were employed in the\n directing of the affairs of the church, in the administration of\n the sacrament, in preaching and in pastoral work, but only at the\n bidding or with the express permission of the bishop. During the\n following period for the first time, when demands had multiplied,\n and the episcopal authority was no longer in need of being\n jealously guarded, were their functions enlarged to embrace\n an independent pastoral care, preaching and dispensation of the\n sacraments for which they were personally responsible.--In regard\n to official position the =Deacons= had a career just the converse\n of this; for their importance increased just as the range\n of their official functions was enlarged. Seeing that in the\n earliest times they had occupied a position subordinate to the\n presbyter-bishops, they could not be regarded in this way as\n their rivals; and the development of the proto-presbyterate into\n a monarchical episcopate was too evidently in their own interests\n to awaken any opposition on their part. They therefore stood in a\n far closer relation to the bishops than did the presbyters. They\n were his confidants, his companions in travel, often also his\n deputies and representatives at the Synods. To them he committed\n the distribution of the church\u2019s alms, for which their original\n charge of the poor qualified them. To these duties were added\n also many of the parts of divine service; they baptised under the\n commission of the bishop, obtained and prepared the sacramental\n elements, handed round the cup, at the close of the service\n carried to the sick and imprisoned the body and blood of the Lord,\n intimated the beginning and the close of the various parts of\n divine service, recited the public prayers, read the gospels, and\n kept order during worship. Often, too, they preached the sermon.\n In consequence of the preponderating position given to the Old\n Testament idea of the priesthood the bishop was compared to the\n high priest, the presbyters to the priests, and the deacons to\n the Levites, and so too did they already assume the name, from\n which the German word \u201cPriester,\u201d English \u201cPriest,\u201d French\n \u201cPr\u00eatre,\u201d Italian \u201cPr\u00eate,\u201d is derived.\n\n Among the =Ordines Minores= the oldest was the office of =Reader=,\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. In the time of Cyprian this place was heartily\n accorded to the Confessors. In later times it was usual to begin\n the clerical career with service in the readership. The duties\n of this office were the public reading of the longer scripture\n portions and the custody of the sacred books. Somewhat later than\n the readership the office of the =Subdiaconi=, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 was\n instituted. They were assistants to the Deacons, and as such\n took first rank among the _Ordines Minores_, and of these were\n alone regarded as worthy of ordination. Toward the end of the 3rd\n century the office of the =Cantores=, \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, was instituted for\n the conducting of the public service of praise. The =Acolytes=,\n who are met with in Rome first about the middle of the 3rd\n century, were those who accompanied the bishop as his servants.\n The =Exorcists= discharged the spiritual function of dealing with\n those possessed of evil spirits, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9,\n over whom they had to repeat the public prayers and the formula\n of exorcism. As there was also an exorcism associated with\n baptism, the official functions of the exorcists extended to\n the catechumens. The =Ostiarii= or =Janitores=, \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03af,\n occupied the lowest position.--In the larger churches for the\n instruction of the catechumens there were special =Catechists=\n appointed, _Doctores audientium_, and where the need was\n felt, especially in the churches of North Africa speaking\n the Punic tongue, there were also =Interpreters= whose duty\n it was to translate and interpret the scripture lessons. To\n the =Deaconesses=, for the most part widows or virgins, was\n committed the care of the poor and sick, the counselling of\n inexperienced women and maidens, the general oversight of\n the female catechumens. They had no clerical character.--The\n =Ordination= of the clergy was performed by the laying on\n of hands. Those were disqualified who had just recently been\n baptised or had received baptism only during severe illness\n (_Neophyti_, _Clinici_), also all who had been excommunicated\n and those who had mutilated themselves.--Continuation, \u00a7 45, 3.\n\n \u00a7 34.4. =Clergy and Laity.=--The idea that a priestly mediation\n between sinful men and a gracious deity was necessary had been so\n deeply implanted in the religious consciousness of pre-Christian\n antiquity, pagan as well as Jewish, that a form of public worship\n without a priesthood seemed almost as inconceivable as a religion\n without a god. And even though the inspired writings of the New\n Testament decidedly and expressly taught that the pre-Christian\n or Old Testament institution of a special human priesthood\n had been abolished and merged in the one eternal mediation\n of the exalted Son of God and Son of man, and that there was\n now a universal spiritual priesthood of all Christians with\n the right and privilege of drawing near even to the heavenly\n throne of grace (Heb. iv. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Rev. i. 6), yet,\n in consequence of the idea of the permanence of Old Testament\n institutions which prevailed, even in the Post-Apostolic Age,\n the sacerdotal theory came more and more into favour. This\n relapse to the Old Testament standpoint was moreover rendered\n almost inevitable by the contemporary metamorphosis of the\n ecclesiastical office which existed as the necessary basis of\n human organisation (\u00a7 17, 4) into a hierarchical organisation\n resting upon an assumed divine institution. For clericalism,\n with its claims to be the sole divinely authorised channel for\n the communication of God\u2019s grace, was the correlate and the\n indispensable support of hierarchism, with its exclusive claims\n to legislative, judicial, disciplinary and administrative\n precedence in the affairs of the church. The reaction which\n Montanism (\u00a7 40) initiated in the interests of the Christian\n people against the hierarchical and clerical tendencies spreading\n throughout the church, was without result owing to its extreme\n extravagance. Tertullian emphasised indeed very strongly the\n Apostolic idea of the universal priesthood of all Christians, but\n in Cyprian this is allowed to fall quite behind the priesthood\n of the clergy and ultimately came to be quite forgotten.--The Old\n Catholic Age, however, shows many reminiscences of the original\n relation of the congregation to the ecclesiastical officers,\n or as it would now be called, of the laity to the clergy. That\n the official teaching of religion and preaching in the public\n assemblies of the church, although as a rule undertaken by the\n _Ordines majores_, might even then in special circumstances and\n with due authorisation be discharged by laymen, was shown by\n the Catechetical institution at Alexandria and by the case\n of Origen who when only a Catechist often preached in the\n church. The Apostolic Constitutions, too, 8, 31, supported the\n view that laymen, if only they were skilful in the word and of\n irreproachable lives, should preach by a reference to the promise:\n \u201cThey shall be all taught of God.\u201d The repeated expressions of\n disapproval of the administration of the eucharist by laymen\n in the Ignatian Epistles presupposes the frequent occurrence\n of the practice; Tertullian would allow it in case of necessity,\n for \u201c_Ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici_.\u201d Likewise in\n reference to the administration of baptism he teaches that under\n ordinary circumstances _propter ecclesi\u00e6 honorem_ it should be\n administered only by the bishop and the clergy appointed by him\n to the work, _alioquin_ (_e.g._ in times of persecution) _etiam\n laicis jus est_. This, too, is the decision of the Council\n of Elvira in A.D. 306. The report which Cyprian gives of his\n procedure in regard to the vast number of the _Lapsi_ of his time\n (\u00a7 39, 2; 41, 2) affords evidence that at least in extraordinary\n and specially difficult cases of discipline the whole church was\n consulted. The people\u2019s right to take part in the choice of their\n minister had not yet been questioned, and their assistance at\n least in the Synods was never refused.\n\n \u00a7 34.5. =The Synods.=--The Council of Apostles at Jerusalem\n (Acts xv.) furnished an example of Synodal deliberation and\n issuing of decrees. But even in the pagan world such institutions\n had existed. The old religio-political confederacies in Greece\n and Asia Minor had indeed since the time of the Roman conquest\n lost their political significance; but their long accustomed\n assemblies (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9, _Concilia_) continued to meet in\n the capitals of the provinces under the presidency of the Roman\n governor. The fact that the same nomenclature was adopted seems\n to show that they were not without formal influence on the\n origin of the institution of the church synod. The first occasion\n for such meetings was given by the Montanist movements in Asia\n Minor (\u00a7 40, 1); and soon thereafter by the controversies about\n the observance of Easter (\u00a7 37, 2). In the beginning of the 3rd\n century the Provincial Synods had already assumed the position\n of fixed and regularly recurring institutions. In the time of\n Cyprian, the presbyters and deacons took an active part in the\n Synods alongside of the bishops, and the people generally were\n not prevented from attending. No decision could be arrived at\n without the knowledge and the acquiescence of the members of the\n church. From the time of the Nicene Council, in A.D. 325, the\n bishops alone had a vote and the presence of the laity was more\n and more restricted. The decrees of Synods were communicated\n to distant churches by means of Synodal rescripts, and even\n in the 3rd century the claim was made in these, in accordance\n with Acts xv., to the immediate enlightenment of the Holy\n Spirit.--Continuation, \u00a7 43, 2.\n\n \u00a7 34.6. =Personal and Epistolary Intercourse.=--From the very\n earliest times the Christian churches of all lands maintained\n a regular communication with one another through messengers\n or itinerating brethren. The _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_\n furnishes the earliest account of this: Any one who comes from\n another place in the name of the Lord shall be received as a\n brother; one who is on his journey, however, shall not accept the\n hospitality of the church for more than two, or at furthest than\n three days; but if he chooses to remain in the place, he must\n engage in work for his own support, in which matter the church\n will help him; if he will not so conduct himself he is to be sent\n back as a \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, who has been seeking to make profit out\n of his profession of Christ. The Didache knows nothing as yet of\n the letters of authentication among the earlier messengers of the\n church which soon became necessary and customary. As a guarantee\n against the abuse of this custom such \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u03af (2 Cor.\n iii. 1) had come into use even in Tertullian\u2019s time, who speaks\n of a _Contesseratio hospitalitatis_, in such a form that they\n were understood only by the initiated as recognisable tokens of\n genuineness, and were hence called _Litter\u00e6 format\u00e6_, or \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1. The same care was also taken in respect of important\n epistolary communications from one church to another or to other\n churches. Among these were included, _e.g._ the Synodal rescripts,\n the so-called \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac by which the newly-chosen\n bishops intimated their entrance upon office to the other bishops\n of their district, the _Epistol\u00e6 festales_ (paschales) regarding\n the celebration of a festival, especially the Easter festival\n (\u00a7 56, 3), communications about important church occurrences,\n especially about martyrdoms (\u00a7 32, 8), etc. According to Optatus\n of Mileve (\u00a7 63, 1): \u201c_Totus orbis_\u201d could boast of \u201c_comnmercio\n formatarum in una communionis societate concordat_.\u201d\n\n \u00a7 34.7. =The Unity and Catholicity of the Church.=--The fact\n that Christianity was destined to be a religion for the world,\n which should embrace all peoples and tongues, and should permeate\n them all with one spirit and unite them under one heavenly\n head, rested upon the presupposition that the church was one and\n universal or catholic. The inward unity of the spirit demanded\n also a corresponding unity in manifestation. It is specially\n evident from the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ that the\n consciousness of the unity of the church had deeply rooted itself\n even in the Post-Apostolic Age (\u00a7 20, 1). \u201cThe points which\n according to it prove the unity of Christendom are the following:\n firstly, the _disciplina_ in accordance with the ethical\n requirements of the Lord, secondly, baptism in the name of the\n Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thirdly, the order of fasting and\n prayer, especially the regular use of the Lord\u2019s Prayer, and\n fourthly and lastly, the eucharist, _i.e._ the sacred meal in\n partaking of which the church gives thanks to God, the creator of\n all things, for the revelation imparted to it through Jesus, for\n faith and knowledge and immortality, and implores the fulfilment\n of its hope, the overthrow of this world, the coming again of\n Christ, and reception into the kingdom of God. He who has this\n doctrine and acts in accordance with it is a \u2018Christian,\u2019 belongs\n to \u2018the saints,\u2019 is a \u2018brother,\u2019 and ought to be received even\n as the Lord\u201d (Harnack). The struggle against the Gnostics had\n the effect of transforming this primitive Christian idea of\n unity into a consciousness of the necessity of adopting a common\n doctrinal formula, which again this controversy rendered much\n more definite and precise, to which a concise popular expression\n was given in one common _Regula fidei_ (\u00a7 35, 2), and by\n means of which the specific idea of catholicity was developed\n (\u00a7 20, 2).--The misleading and dangerous thing about this\n construction and consolidation of one great Catholic church was\n that every deviation from external forms in the constitution and\n worship as well as erroneous doctrine, immorality and apostasy,\n was regarded as a departing from the one Catholic church, the\n body of Christ, and consequently, since not only the body was\n put upon the same level with the head, but even the garment of\n the body was identified with the body itself, as a separating\n from the communion of Christ, involving the loss of salvation\n and eternal blessedness. This notion received a powerful\n impulse during the 2nd century when the unity of the church\n was threatened by heresies, sects and divisions. It reached\n its consummation and won the _Magna Charta_ of its perfect\n enunciation in Cyprian\u2019s book _De Unitate Ecclesi\u00e6_. In\n the monarchical rank of the bishop of each church, as the\n representative of Christ, over the college of presbyters, as\n representatives of the Apostles, Ignatius of Antioch sees the\n guarantee of the church\u2019s unity. According to Cyprian, this unity\n has its expression in the Apostolate; in the Episcopate it has\n its support. The promise of Christ, Matt. xvi. 18, is given to\n Peter, not as the head but as the single representative of the\n Apostles (John xx. 21). The Apostolic office, with the promise\n attached to it, passed from the Apostles by means of ordination\n to the bishops. These, through their monarchical rank, represent\n continuously for the several churches (_Ecclesia est in episcopo_),\n and through their combined action, for the whole of Christendom,\n the unity of the church; _Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulus\n in solidum, pars tenetur_. All the bishops, just as all the\n Apostles, have perfect parity with one another; _pares consortio,\n jure et honore_. Each of them is a successor of Peter and heir\n of the promise given first to Peter but for all.--He who cuts\n himself off from the bishops, cuts himself off from the church.\n _Habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem....\n Extra ecclesiam nulla spes salutis._ Alongside of the Apostolic\n writings, the tradition which prevailed among the Apostolic\n churches (_Sedes apostolic\u00e6_) was regarded as a standard of\n catholicity in constitution, worship and doctrine; indeed, it\n must even have ranked above the Apostolic writings themselves\n in settling the question of the New Testament Canon (\u00a7 36, 8),\n until these had secured general circulation and acceptance.\n\n \u00a7 34.8. =The Roman Primacy.=--The claims of the Roman bishopric\n to the primacy over the whole church, which reached its fuller\n development in the 4th and 5th centuries (\u00a7 46, 7), were founded\n originally and chiefly on the assertion that the promise of\n Matt. xvi. 18, 19, was given only and exclusively to the Apostle\n Peter as the Primate of the Apostles and the head of the church.\n This assumption overlooked the fact that in Matt. xviii. 18 and\n John xx. 21 ff., this promise was given with reference to all\n the Apostles. These claims were further supposed to be supported\n by the words addressed to Peter, \u201cstrengthen thy brethren\u201d\n (Luke xxii. 31), which seemed to accord to Peter a primacy\n over his fellow Apostles; and also by the interpretation given\n of John xxi. 15 ff., where \u201clambs\u201d were understood of laymen\n and \u201csheep\u201d of the Apostles. It was likewise assumed that\n the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, and so the\n legitimate and only heir of all his prerogatives. The fable of\n the Roman bishopric of Peter (\u00a7 16, 1) was at an early period\n unhesitatingly adopted, all the more because no one expected the\n results which in later times were deduced from a quite different\n understanding of Matt. xvi. 18. During this whole period such\n consequences were never dreamt of either by a Roman bishop or by\n anybody else. Only this was readily admitted at least by the West\n that Rome was the foremost of all the Apostolic churches, that\n there the Apostolic tradition had been preserved in its purest\n form, and that, therefore, its bishops should have a particularly\n influential voice in all questions that were to be judged of\n by the whole episcopate, and the Roman bishops were previously\n content with taking advantage of this concession in the largest\n measure possible.[96]\n\n\n \u00a7 35. THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM.[97]\n\n As an indispensable means to participation in salvation and as\na condition of reception into the communion of the church, baptism\nwas practised from the earliest times. Infant baptism, though not\nuniversally adopted, was yet in theory almost universally admitted to\nbe proper. Tertullian alone is found opposing it. All adults who desired\nbaptism had, as Catechumens, to pass through a course of training under\na Christian teacher. Many, however, voluntarily and purposely postponed\ntheir baptism, frequently even to a deathbed, in order that all the\nsins of their lives might be certainly removed by baptismal grace. After\na full course of instruction had been passed through, the Catechumens\nprepared themselves for baptism by prayer and fasting, and before the\nadministration of the sacred ordinance they were required to renounce\nthe devil and all his works (_Abrenuntiare diabolo et pomp\u00e6 et angelis\nejus_) and to recite a confession of their faith. The controversy as to\nwhether baptism administered by heretics should be regarded as valid was\nconducted with great bitterness during the 3rd century.\n\n \u00a7 35.1. =The Preparation for Receiving Baptism.=--After a\n complete exposition of the evangelical moral code in chap. 1-6,\n the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ proceeds thus: \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1, etc. At this time, therefore,\n besides the necessarily presupposed acquaintance with the chief\n points in the gospel history, the initiation into the moral\n doctrine of the gospel of the person receiving baptism was\n regarded as most essential in the baptismal instruction. In this\n passage there is no mention of a doctrinal course of teaching\n based upon a symbol. But what here is still wanting is given in\n a summary way in chaps. 7 ff. in the instructions about baptism\n and the Lord\u2019s supper attached to the baptismal formula and the\n eucharistic prayers. This therefore was reserved for that worship\n from which the candidates for baptism and the newly baptized had\n to gather their faith and hope as to the future completion of the\n kingdom of God. First the struggle against Gnosticism obliged the\n church to put more to the front the doctrines of faith which were\n thereby more fully developed, and to concern itself with these\n questions even in the instruction of the Catechumens. The custom,\n which the Didache and Justin Martyr show to have been prevalent\n in post-Apostolic times, of the baptiser together with others\n voluntarily offering themselves taking part with the candidate\n for baptism in completing the preparation for the holy ordinance\n by observing a two days\u2019 fast, seems soon, so far as the baptiser\n and the others were concerned, to have fallen into desuetude,\n and is never again mentioned.--Since the development of the\n Old Catholic church the preparation of candidates for baptism\n has been divided into two portions of very unequal duration,\n namely, that of instruction, for which on an average a period\n of two years was required, and that of immediate preparation by\n prayer and fasting after the instructions had been completed.\n During the former period the aspirants were called \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9,\n _Catechumeni_; during the latter, \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, _Competentes_.\n As to their participation in the public divine service, the\n Catechumens were first of all as \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 admitted only to the\n hearing of the sermon, and had thus no essential privileges over\n the unbelievers. They first came into closer connection with\n the church only when it was permitted them to take part in\n the devotional exercises, yet only in those portions which had\n reference to themselves, kneeling as \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, while also\n the congregation prayed kneeling. Only in cases of dangerous\n illness could baptism be given before the Catechumen had\n completed his full course (_Baptismus Clinicorum_). The Council\n of Neo-C\u00e6sarea soon after A.D. 314 ordained that a Catechumen\n who as a \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd had been guilty of an open sin, should be\n put back to the first stage of the Catechumenate, namely, to that\n of the \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, and if he then again sinned he should be cast\n off altogether; and the \u0152cumenical Council of Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325\n demanded that offending (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) Catechumens should remain\n \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 for three years and only then should be allowed to\n take part in the devotional service of the church.[98]\n\n \u00a7 35.2. =The Baptismal Formula.=--In close connection with the\n words of institution of baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19) and hence in\n a trinitarian framework, an outline of the doctrine common to all\n the churches, introduced first of all as a confession of faith\n professed by candidates for baptism, obtained currency at a very\n early date. Only a few unimportant modifications were afterwards\n made upon it, and amid all the varieties of provincial and local\n conditions, the formula remained essentially the same. Hence it\n could always be properly characterized with Iren\u00e6us as \u1f00\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2,\n and with Tertullian as _immobilis et irreformabilis_. As a token\n of membership in the Catholic church it is called the Baptismal\n Formula or =Symbolum=. After the introduction of the _Disciplina\n arcani_ (\u00a7 36, 4) it was included in that, and hence was kept\n secret from heathens and even from catechumens, and first\n communicated to the _competentes_. As the \u201cunalterable and\n inflexible\u201d test and standard of the faith and doctrine, as\n well as an intellectual bond of union between churches scattered\n over all the earth, it was called =Regula fidei= and \u039a\u03b1\u03bd\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. That we never find it quoted in the Old Catholic Age,\n is to be explained from its inclusion in the _disciplina arcani_\n and by this also, that the ancient church in common with Jeremiah\n (xxxi. 33), laid great stress upon its being engraven not with\n pen and ink on paper, but with the pen of the Holy Spirit on the\n hearts of believers. Instead then of literal quotation we find\n among the fathers of the Old Catholic Age (Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian,\n Origen, Novatian, etc.) only paraphrastic and explanatory\n references to it which, seeing that no sort of official sanction\n was accorded them in the church, are erroneously spoken of\n as _Regul\u00e6 fidei_. These paraphrases, however, are valuable\n as affording information about the creed of the early church,\n because what is found the same in them all must be regarded as an\n integral part of the original document. In harmony with this is\n the testimony of Rufinus, about A.D. 390, who in his _Expositio\n Symb. apost._ produces three different recensions, namely, the\n Roman, the Aquileian and the Oriental. The oldest and simplest\n was that used in Rome, traces of which may be found as early\n as the middle of the 2nd century. In the time of Rufinus there\n was a tradition that this Roman creed had been composed by the\n XII. Apostles in Jerusalem at the time of their scattering, as\n a universal rule of faith, and had been brought to Rome by Peter.\n It is not quite the same as that known among us as the =Apostles\u2019\n Creed=. It wants the phrases \u201cCreator of heaven and earth,\u201d\n \u201csuffered, dead, descended into hell,\u201d \u201ccatholic, communion of\n saints, eternal life.\u201d The creed of Aquileia adopted the clause\n \u201c_Descendit ad infera_,\u201d and intensified the clause _Carnis\n resurrectio_ by the addition of \u201c_hujus_\u201d and the phrase _Deus\n pater omnipotens_ by the addition of the anti-Patripassian\n predicate (\u00a7 33, 4) _invisibilis et impassibilis_.\n\n \u00a7 35.3. =The Administration of Baptism.=--According to the\n showing of the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ baptism was\n ordinarily administered by a thrice-repeated immersion in flowing\n water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.\n If there be no flowing water at hand, any other kind, even warm\n water, may be used, and in case of necessity sprinkling may be\n substituted for the thrice-repeated immersion. At a later time\n sprinkling was limited to the baptism of the sick, _Baptismus\n clinicorum_. We hear nothing of a consecration of the water to\n its holy use, nor is there any mention of the renunciation and\n exorcism which became customary first in the 3rd century through\n the use of a form of adjuration previously employed only in cases\n of possession. Upon immersion followed an anointing, \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\n (still unknown to the Didache), as a symbol of consecration to a\n spiritual priesthood (1 Pet. ii. 9), and then, in accordance with\n Acts viii. 16 f., the laying on of hands as the vehicle for the\n communication of the Holy Spirit. Soon the immersion came to be\n regarded as the negative part of the ordinance, the putting away\n of sin, and the anointing with the laying on of hands as the\n positive part, the communication of the Spirit. In the Eastern\n church presbyters and deacons were permitted to dispense baptism\n including also the anointing. Both, therefore, continued there\n unseparated. In the West, however, the bishops claimed the laying\n on of hands as their exclusive right, referring in support of\n their claim to Acts viii. Where then the bishop did not himself\n dispense the baptism, the laying on of hands as well as the\n chrismatic anointing was given separately and in addition by him\n as =Confirmation=, _Confirmatio_, _Consignatio_, which separation,\n even when the baptism was administered by a bishop, soon became\n the usual and legal practice. Nevertheless even in the Roman\n church there was at the baptism an anointing with oil which had\n canonical sanction and was designated _chrism_, without prejudice\n to confirmation as an independent act at a later time. The usual\n seasons for administering baptism were Easter, especially the\n Sabbath of Passion week, baptism into the death of Christ,\n Rom. vi. 3, and Pentecost, and in the East also the Epiphany.\n The place for the administration of baptism was regarded as\n immaterial. With infant baptism was introduced the custom of\n having sponsors, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, _sponsores_, who as sureties repeated\n the confession of faith in the name of the unconscious infant\n receiving the baptism.--Continuation, \u00a7 58, 1.\n\n \u00a7 35.4. =The Doctrine of Baptism.=--The Epistle of Barnabas says:\n \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u1fb3. Hermas says: _Ascendunt\n vit\u00e6 assignati_. With Justin the water of baptism is a \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f57 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, According to Iren\u00e6us it effects a\n \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. Tertullian says: _Supervenit spiritus de\n c\u0153lis,--caro spiritualiter mundatur_. Cyprian speaks of an _unda\n genitalis_, of a _nativitas secunda in novum hominem_. Firmilian\n says: _Nativitas, qu\u00e6 est in baptismo, filios Dei generat_.\n Origen calls baptism \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03ae\u03bd.--Of the\n bloody baptism of martyrdom Tertullian exclaims: _Lavacrum non\n acceptum repr\u00e6sentat et perditum reddit_. Hermes and Clement of\n Alexandria maintain that there will be in Hades a preaching and\n a baptism for the sake of pious Gentiles and Jews.\n\n \u00a7 35.5. =The Controversy about Heretics\u2019 Baptism.=--The church of\n Asia Minor and Africa denied the validity of baptism administered\n by heretics; but the Roman church received heretics returning to\n the fold of the Catholic church, if only they had been baptized\n in the name of Christ or of the Holy Trinity, without a second\n baptism, simply laying on the hands as in the case of penitents.\n Stephen of Rome would tolerate no other than the Roman custom and\n hastened to break off church fellowship with those of Asia Minor\n (A.D. 253). Cyprian of Carthage whose ideal of the unity of that\n church in which alone salvation was to be obtained seemed to be\n overthrown by the Roman practice, and Firmilian of C\u00e6sarea in\n Cappadocia, were the most vigorous supporters of the view\n condemned by Rome. Three Carthaginian Synods, the last and most\n important in A.D. 256, decided unequivocally in their favour.\n Dionysius of Alexandria sought to effect a reconciliation by\n writing a tenderly affectionate address to Stephen. To this end\n even more effectively wrought the Valerian persecution, which\n soon afterwards broke out, during which Stephen himself suffered\n martyrdom (A.D. 257). Thus the controversy reached no conclusion.\n The Roman practice, however, continued to receive more and more\n acceptance, and was confirmed by the first \u0152cumenical Council at\n Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325, with the exclusion only of the Samosatians (\u00a7\n 33, 8); likewise also at the Council at Constantinople in A.D.\n 381, with the exclusion of the Montanists (\u00a7 40, 1), the\n Eunomians (\u00a7 50, 3) and the Sabellians (\u00a7 33, 7). These\n exceptions, therefore, referred mostly to the Unitarian heretics,\n the Montanists being excluded on account of their doctrine of the\n Paraclete. Augustine\u2019s successful polemic against the Donatists\n (\u00a7 63, 1), in his treatise in seven books _De baptismo_ first\n overcame all objections hitherto waged against the validity of\n baptism administered by heretics derived from the objectivity of\n the sacrament, and henceforth all that was required was that it\n should be given in the name of the three-one God.\n\n\n \u00a7 36. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ITS VARIOUS PARTS.[99]\n\n There was a tendency from the 2nd century onwards more and more to\ndissolve the connection of the Lord\u2019s Supper with the evening _Agape_\n(\u00a7 17, 7). Trajan\u2019s strict prohibition of secret societies, _het\u00e6r\u00e6_\n(\u00a7 22, 2) seems to have given the first occasion for the separation\nof these two and for the temporary suppression of the love-feasts.\nThe Lord\u2019s Supper was now observed during the Sunday forenoon service\nand the mode of its observance is described even by Justin Martyr. In\nconsideration of the requirements of the Catechumens the service was\ndivided into two parts, a _homiletical_ and a _sacramental_, and from\nthe latter all unbaptized persons, as well as all under discipline\nand those possessed of evil spirits, were excluded. Each part of the\nservice was regularly closed by a concluding benediction, and in the\nWest bore the designations respectively of _Missa catechumenorum_\nand _Missa fidelium_, while in the East they were distinguished as\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd and \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. In connection\nwith this there grew up a notion that the sacramental action had\na mysterious character, _Disciplina arcani_. Owing to the original\nconnection of the Supper with the Agape it became customary to\nprovide the elements used in the ordinance from the voluntary gifts\nbrought by the members of the church, which were called _Oblationes_,\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03af,--a designation which helped to associate the idea of\nsacrifice with the observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper.\n\n \u00a7 36.1. =The Agape.=--That in consequence of the imperial\n edict against secret societies, at least in Asia Minor, the\n much suspected and greatly maligned love-feasts (\u00a7 22) were\n temporarily abandoned, appears from the report of Pliny to\n the Emperor, according to which the Christians of whom he made\n inquiries assured him that they had given up the _mos coeundi\n ad capiendum cibum promiscuum_. But in Africa they were still\n in use or had been revived in the time of Tertullian, who in his\n _Apology_ makes mention very approvingly of them, although at\n a later period, after he had joined the Montanists, he lashes\n them in his book _De Jejuniis_ with the most stinging sarcasm.\n Clement of Alexandria too is aware of flagrant abuses committed\n in connection with those feasts. They continued longest to be\n observed in connection with the services in commemoration of\n the dead and on the festivals of martyrs. The Council of Laodic\u00e6a,\n about the middle of the 4th century, forbade the holding of these\n in the churches and the Second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 renewed\n this prohibition. After this we find no further mention of them.\n\n \u00a7 36.2. =The Missa Catechumenorum.=--The reading of scripture\n (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, _Lectio_,--comp. \u00a7 36, 7) formed the chief exercise\n during this part of the service. There was unrestricted liberty\n as to the choice of the portions to be read. It was the duty of\n the Readers, \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, to perform this part of the worship,\n but frequently Evangelists on the invitation of the Deacons\n would read, and the whole congregation showed their reverence\n by standing up. At the close of the reading an expository and\n practical address (\u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1, \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, _Sermo_, _Tractatus_) was given\n by the bishop or in his absence by a presbyter or deacon, or even\n by a Catechist, as in the case of Origen, and soon, especially in\n the Greek church, this assumed the form of an artistic, rhetorical\n discourse. The reading and exposition of God\u2019s word were followed\n by the prayers, to which the people gave responses. These were\n uttered partly by the bishop, partly by the deacons, and were\n extemporary utterances of the heart, though very soon they\n assumed a stereotyped form. The congregation responded to each\n short sentence of the prayer with \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ad\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd. In the fully\n developed order of public worship of the 3rd century the prayers\n were arranged to correspond to the different parts of the service,\n for Catechumens, energumens (possessed), and penitents. After\n all these came the common prayer of the church for all sorts of\n callings, conditions, and needs in the life of the brethren.\n\n \u00a7 36.3. =The _Missa Fidelium_.=--The centre of this part of the\n service was the celebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper. In the time of\n Justin Martyr the liturgy connected therewith was very simple. The\n brotherly kiss followed the common prayer, then the sacramental\n elements were brought in to the ministrant who consecrated\n them by the prayer of praise and thanksgiving (\u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1). The\n people answered Amen, and thereupon the consecrated elements\n were distributed to all those present. From that prayer the whole\n ordinance received the name \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1, because its consecrating\n influence made common bread into the bread of the Supper. Much\n more elaborate is the liturgy in the 8th Book of the _Apostolic\n Constitutions_ (\u00a7 43, 4), which may be regarded as a fair sample\n of the worship of the church toward the end of the 3rd century.\n At the close of the sermon during the prayers connected with\n that part of the service began the withdrawal successively of\n the Catechumens, the energumens and the penitents. Then the _Missa\n fidelium_ was commenced with the common intercessory prayer of\n the church. After various collects and responses there followed\n the brotherly kiss, exhortation against participation in unworthy\n pleasures, preparation of the sacramental elements, the sign of\n the cross, the consecration prayer, the words of institution, the\n elevation of the consecrated elements, all accompanied by suitable\n prayers, hymns, doxologies and responses. The bishop or presbyter\n distributed the bread with the words, \u03a3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6; the deacon\n passed round the cup with the words, \u0391\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2.\n Finally the congregation kneeling received the blessing of the\n bishop, and the deacon dismissed them with the words, \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u1fc3.--The bread was that commonly used, _i.e._, leavened\n bread (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2); the wine also was, according to the custom\n of time, mixed with water (\u03ba\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bc\u03b1), in which Cyprian already\n fancied a symbol of the union of Christ and the church. In the\n African and Eastern churches, founding on John vi. 53, children,\n of course, those who had already been baptised, were allowed to\n partake of the communion. At the close of the service the deacons\n carried the consecrated sacramental elements to the sick and\n imprisoned. In many places a portion of the consecrated bread\n was taken home, that the family might use it at morning prayer\n for the consecration of the new day. No formal act of confession\n preceded the communion. The need of such an act in consequence\n of the existing disciplinary and liturgical ordinance had not yet\n made itself felt.\n\n \u00a7 36.4. =The Disciplina Arcani.=--The notion that the\n sacramental part of the divine service, including in this\n the prayers and hymns connected therewith, the Lord\u2019s prayer,\n administration of baptism and the baptismal formula, as well as\n the anointing and the consecration of the priest, was a _mystery_\n (\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae) which was to be kept secret from all\n unbaptised persons (\u1f00\u03bc\u03cd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9) and only to be practised in presence\n of the baptised (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), is quite unknown to Justin Martyr\n and also to Iren\u00e6us. Justin accordingly describes in his Apology,\n expressly intended for the heathen, in full detail and without\n hesitation, all the parts of the eucharistic service. It was in\n Tertullian\u2019s time that this notion originated, and it had its\n roots in the catechumenate and the consequent partition of the\n service into two parts, from the second of which the unbaptised\n were excluded. The official Roman Catholic theology, on the other\n hand, regards the _disciplina arcani_ as an institution existing\n from the times of the Apostles, and from it accounts for the want\n of patristic support to certain specifically Roman Catholic dogmas\n and forms of worship, in order that they may, in spite of the\n want of such support, maintain that these had a place in primitive\n Christianity.\n\n \u00a7 36.5. =The Doctrine of the Lord\u2019s Supper.=--Though the idea\n was not sharply and clearly defined, there was yet a widespread\n and profound conviction that the Lord\u2019s Supper was a supremely\n holy mystery, spiritual food indispensable to eternal life,\n that the body and blood of the Lord entered into some mystical\n connection with the bread and wine, and placed the believing\n partaker of them in true and essential fellowship with Christ.\n It was in consequence of the adoption of such modes of expression\n that the pagan calumnies about _Thyestian feasts_ (\u00a7 22) first\n gained currency. Ignatius calls the Lord\u2019s Supper a \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, the cup a \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,\n and professes \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Justin Martyr\n says: \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. According to Iren\u00e6us,\n it is not _communis panis, sed eucharistia ex duabus rebus\n constans, terrena et c\u0153lesti_, and our bodies by means of its\n use become _jam non corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia_.\n Tertullian and Cyprian, too, stoutly maintain this doctrine, but\n incline sometimes to a more symbolical interpretation of it. The\n spiritualistic Alexandrians, Clement and Origen, consider that\n the feeding of the soul with the divine word is the purpose of\n the Lord\u2019s Supper.[100]--Continuation \u00a7 58, 2.\n\n \u00a7 36.6. =The Sacrificial Theory.=--When once the sacerdotal\n theory had gained the ascendancy (\u00a7 34, 4) the correlated notion\n of a sacrifice could not much longer be kept in the background.\n And it was just in the celebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper that the\n most specious grounds for such a theory were to be found. First\n of all the prayer, which formed so important a part of this\n celebration that the whole service came to be called from it the\n Eucharist, might be regarded as a spiritual sacrifice. Then again\n the gifts brought by the congregation for the dispensation of the\n sacrament were called \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u03af, _Oblationes_, names which were\n already in familiar use in connection with sacrificial worship.\n And just as the congregation offered their contributions to the\n Supper, so also the priests offered them anew in the sacramental\n action, and also to this priestly act was given the name\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. Then again, not only the prayer but the\n Supper itself was designated a \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, _Sacrificium_, though at\n first indeed in a non-literal, figurative sense.--Continuation\n \u00a7 58, 3.\n\n \u00a7 36.7. =The Use of Scripture.=--In consequence of their\n possessing but few portions of Scripture, the references of the\n Apostolic Fathers to the New Testament books must necessarily be\n only occasional. The synoptic gospels are most frequently quoted,\n though these are referred to only as a whole under the name \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. In Justin Martyr the references become more frequent,\n yet even here there are no express citation of passages; only\n once, in the Dialogue, is the Revelation of John named. He\n mentions as his special source for the life and works of Jesus\n the \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. What he borrows from this\n source is for the most part to be found in our Synoptic Gospels;\n but we have not in this sufficient ground for identifying the one\n with the other. On the contrary, we find that the citations of our\n Lord\u2019s words do not correspond to the text of our gospels, but are\n sometimes rather in verbal agreement with the Apocryphal writings,\n and still further, that he adopts Apocryphal accounts of the life\n of Jesus, _e.g._, the birth of Christ in a cave, the coming of\n the Magi from Arabia, the legend that Jesus as a carpenter made\n ploughs and yokes, etc., borrowing them from the \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd. If one further considers Justin\u2019s account of the\n Sunday service as consisting of the reading of the \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n or the writings of the Prophets, and thereafter closed by the\n expository and hortatory address of the president (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ce\u03c2), he\n will be led to the conclusion that his \u201cApostolic Memoirs\u201d must\n have been a Gospel Harmony for church use, probably on the basis\n of Matthew\u2019s Gospel drawn from our Synoptic Gospels, with the\n addition of some apocryphal and traditional elements. The author\n of the Didache too does not construct his \u201ccommands of the Lord\n communicated by the Apostles\u201d directly from our Synoptic Gospels,\n but from a \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 which presented a text of\n Matthew enriched by additions from Luke. The Diatessaron of\n Tatian (\u00a7 30, 10) shows that soon after this the gospel of John,\n which was not regarded by Justin or the author of the Didache\n as a source for the evangelical history, although there are not\n wanting in both manifold references to it, came to be regarded\n as a work to be read in combination with these. It was only after\n a New Testament Canon had been in the Old Catholic Age gradually\n established, and from the vast multitude of books on gospel\n history, which even Luke had found existing (i. 1) and which\n had been multiplied to an almost incalculable extent both in the\n interests of heresy and of church doctrine, our four gospels were\n universally recognised as alone affording authentic information\n of the life and doctrines of the Lord, that the eclectic gospels\n hitherto in use had more and more withdrawn from them the favour\n of the church. =Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron= maintained its place longest\n in the Syrian Church. Theodoret, \u2020 A.D. 457, testifies that in his\n diocese he had found and caused to be put away about two hundred\n copies. Aphraates (about A.D. 340, \u00a7 47, 13) still used it as the\n text of his homilies. At the time of publication of the _Doctrina\n Add\u00e6i_ (\u00a7 32, 6) it was still used in the church of Edessa, and\n Ephraim Syrus in A.D. 360 refers to a commentary in the form of\n scholia on it in an Armenian translation, in which the passages\n commented on are literally reproduced, Theodoret\u2019s charge against\n it of cutting out passages referring to the descent of Christ\n after the flesh from David, especially the genealogies of Matthew\n and Luke, is confirmed by these portions thus preserved. Otherwise\n however, it is free from heretical alterations, though not wholly\n without apocryphal additions. All the four gospels are in brief\n summary so skilfully wrought into one another that no joining\n is ever visible. What cannot be incorporated is simply left out,\n and the whole historical and doctrinal material is distributed\n over the one working year of the synoptists.\n\n \u00a7 36.8. =Formation of a New Testament Canon.=--The oldest\n collection of a New Testament Canon known to us was made by the\n Gnostic _Marcion_ (\u00a7 27, 11) about A.D. 150. Some twenty years\n later in the so-called _Muratorian Canon_, a fragment found by\n Muratori in the 18th century with a catalogue in corrupt Latin\n justifying the reception of the New Testament writings received\n in the Roman church. For later times the chief witnesses are\n Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius.\n The Muratorian Canon and Eusebius are witnesses for the fact that\n in the 2nd century, besides the Gospels, the Apostolic Epistles\n and the Revelation of John, other so-called Apostolic Epistles\n were read at worship in the churches, for instance, the _1st\n Ep. of Clement of Rome_, _the Ep. of Barnabas_, _the Shepherd\n of Hermas_, in some churches also the apocryphal _Apocalypse\n of Peter_ and _Acts of Paul_, in Corinth, an Ep. of the Roman\n bishop Soter (A.D. 166-174) to that church, and also _Acts of the\n Martyrs_. Montanist as well as Gnostic excesses gave occasion for\n the definite fixing of the New Testament Canon by the Catholic\n church (\u00a7 40). Since the time of Iren\u00e6us, the four Gospels, the\n Acts, the 13 Epp. of Paul, the Ep. to the Hebrews (which some\n in the West did not regard as Pauline), 1st Peter, and 1st John,\n along with the Revelation of John, were universally acknowledged.\n Eusebius therefore calls these \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1. There was still some\n uncertainty as to the Ep. of James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John\n and Jude (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1). The antilegomena of a second class,\n which have no claim to canonicity, although in earlier times they\n were much used in churches just like the canonical scriptures,\n were called by him \u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b1, viz. the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of\n Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Ep. of Barnabas, and the\n Didache. He would also very willingly have included among these\n the Revelation of John (\u00a7 33, 9), although he acknowledged\n that elsewhere that is included in the Homologoumena.--=The Old\n Testament Canon= was naturally regarded as already completed. But\n since the Old Testament had come to the Greek and Latin Church\n Teachers in the expanded form of the LXX., they had unhesitatingly\n assumed that its added books were quite as sacred and as fully\n inspired as those of the Hebrew Canon. Melito of Sardis, however,\n about A.D. 170, found it desirable to make a journey of research\n through Palestine in order to determine the limits of the Jewish\n Canon, and then to draw up a list of the Holy Scriptures of the\n Old Testament essentially corresponding therewith. Origen too\n informs us that the Jews, according to the number of letters in\n their alphabet acknowledged only 22 books, which, however, does\n not lead him to condemn this reception of the additional books of\n the church. From the end of the 2nd century, the Western church\n had =Latin Translations= of the biblical books, the origin of\n which is to be sought in North Africa, where in consequence\n of prevailing ignorance of the Greek language the need of\n such translations was most deeply felt. Even so early as the\n beginning of the 5th century we find Jerome (\u2020 420) complaining\n of _varietas_ and _vitiositas_ of the _Codices latini_, and\n declaring: _Tot sunt exemplaria_ (=forms of the text) _paene\n quot codices_. Augustine[101] gives preference to the _Itala_\n over all others. The name =Itala= is now loosely given to all\n fragments of Latin translations previous to that of Jerome.--The\n Syriac translation, =the Peshito=, plain or simple (so-called\n because it exactly and without paraphrasing renders the words\n of the Hebrew and Greek originals) belongs to the 3rd century,\n although first expressly referred to by Ephraim. In it 2 Peter,\n 2 and 3 John and Jude are not found.\n\n \u00a7 36.9. =The Doctrine of Inspiration.=--In earlier times it\n was usual, after the example of Philo, to regard the prophetic\n inspiration of the sacred writers as purely passive, as \u1f14\u03ba\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n Athenagoras compares the soul of the prophet while prophesying\n to a flute; Justin Martyr in his _Cohort. ad Gr\u00e6c._ to a lyre,\n struck by the Holy Spirit as the _plectrum_, etc. The Montanist\n prophets first brought this theory into disrepute. The Apologist\n Miltiades of Asia Minor was the first Church Teacher who\n vindicated over against the Montanists the proposition: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. The Alexandrians who even admitted\n an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the nobler intellects of\n paganism, greatly modified the previously accepted doctrine\n of inspiration. Origen, for example, teaches a gradual rising\n or falling in the measure of inspiration even in the bible,\n and determines this according to the more or less prominence\n secured by the human individuality of the writers of scripture.\n\n \u00a7 36.10. =Hymnology.=--The _Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere\n secum invicem_ in the report of Pliny (\u00a7 22, 2), may be classed\n with the antiphonal responsive hymns of the church. Tertullian\n bears witness to a rich use of song in family as well as\n congregational worship. So too does Origen. In the composition\n of church hymns the heretics seem for a long while to have kept\n abreast of the Catholics (Bardesanes and Harmonius, \u00a7 27, 5),\n but the latter were thereby stirred up to greater exertions.\n The Martyr Athenogenes and the Egyptian bishop Nepos are named\n as authors of church hymns. We have still a hymn \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 by\n Clement of Alexandria. Socrates ascribes to Ignatius, bishop\n of Antioch, the introduction of the alternate-song (between\n different congregational choirs). More credible is Theodoret\u2019s\n statement that the Antiochean monks Flavian and Diodorus had\n imported it, about A.D. 260, from the National Syrian into the\n Greek-Syrian church.--Continuation \u00a7 59, 4, 5.\n\n\n \u00a7 37. FEASTS AND FESTIVAL SEASONS.[102]\n\n Sunday as a day of joy was distinguished by standing at prayer,\ninstead of kneeling as at other times, and also by the prohibition\nof fasting. Of the other days of the week, Wednesday, the day on\nwhich the Jewish Council decided to put Jesus to death and Judas had\nbetrayed him, and Friday, as the day of his death, were consecrated\nto the memory of Christ\u2019s suffering; hence the _Feria quarta et sexta_\nwere celebrated as watch days, _dies stationum_, after the symbolism\nof the _Militia christiana_ (Eph. vi. 10-17), by public meetings\nof the congregation. As days of the Passion, penitence and fasting\nthey formed a striking contrast to the Sunday. The chief days of the\nChristian festival calendar, which afterwards found richer and more\ncomplete expression in the cycle of the Christian year, were thus\nat first associated with the weekly cycle. A long continued and wide\nspread controversy as to the proper time for celebrating Easter arose\nduring the 2nd century.\n\n \u00a7 37.1. =The Festivals of the Christian Year.=--The thought\n of Christ\u2019s suffering and death was so powerful and engrossing\n that even in the weekly cycle one day had not been sufficient.\n Still less could one festal day in the yearly cycle satisfy\n the hearts of believers. Hence a long preparation for the\n festival was arranged, which was finally fixed at forty days,\n and was designated the season _Quadragesima_ (\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae). Its\n conclusion and acme was the so-called Great Week, beginning with\n the Sunday of the entrance into Jerusalem, culminating in the day\n of the crucifixion, Good Friday, and closing with the day of rest\n in the tomb. This Great Week or Passion Week was regarded as the\n antitype of the Old Testament Passover feast. The Old Catholic\n church did not, however, transfer this name to the festival\n of the resurrection (\u00a7 56, 4). The day of the resurrection\n was rather regarded as the beginning of a new festival cycle\n consecrated to the glorification of the redeemer, viz. the season\n of _Quinquagesima_ (\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae), concluding with the festival\n of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the anniversary of the\n founding of the Christian church, which has now come to be known\n _par excellence_ as _Pentecost_. The fifty intervening days were\n simply days of joy. There was daily communion, no fasting, only\n standing and not kneeling at prayer. The fortieth day, the day\n of the _Ascension_, had a special pre-eminence as a day of festal\n celebrations. The festival of Epiphany on 6th January originated\n in the East to celebrate the baptism of Christ in Jordan, as the\n manifestation of his Messianic rank. As yet there is nowhere any\n trace of the Christmas festival.--Continuation, \u00a7 56.\n\n \u00a7 37.2. =The Paschal Controversies.=--During the 2nd century,\n there were three different practices prevalent in regard to the\n observance of the Paschal festival. The Ebionite Jewish Christians\n (\u00a7 28, 1) held the Paschal feast on the 14th Nisan according to\n the strict literal interpretation of the Old Testament precepts,\n maintaining also that Christ, who according to the synoptists\n died on the 15th, observed the Passover with his disciples on\n the 14th. Then again the church of Asia Minor followed another\n practice which was traced back to the Apostle John. Those of Asia\n Minor attached themselves indeed in respect of date to the Jewish\n festival, but gave it a Christian meaning. They let the passover\n alone, and pronounced the memorial of Christ\u2019s death to be the\n principal thing in the festival. According to their view, based\n upon the fourth Gospel, Christ died upon the 14th Nisan, so that\n He had not during the last year of His life observed a regular\n Passover. On the 14th Nisan, therefore, they celebrated their\n Paschal festival, ending their fast at the moment of Christ\u2019s\n death, three o\u2019clock in the afternoon, and then, instead of the\n Jewish Passover, having an Agape with the Lord\u2019s Supper. Those who\n adopted either of those two forms were at a later period called\n _Quartodecimans_ or _Tessareskaidekatites_. Different from both\n of these was a third practice followed in all the West, as also\n in Egypt, Palestine, Pontus and Greece, which detached itself\n still further from the Jewish Passover. This Western usage\n disregarded the day of the month in order to secure the observance\n of the great resurrection festival on the first day of the week.\n The \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, then, if the 14th did not happen to be a\n Friday, was always celebrated on the first Friday after the 14th,\n and the Easter festival with the observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper\n on the immediately following Sunday. The Westerns regarded the\n day of Christ\u2019s death as properly a day of mourning, and only\n at the end of the pre-Easter fast on the day of the Resurrection\n introduced the celebration of the Agape and the Lord\u2019s Supper.\n These divergent practices first awakened attention on the\n appearing of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna at Rome in A.D. 155.\n The Roman bishop Anicetus referred to the tradition of the Roman\n Church; Polycarp laid stress upon the fact that he himself had\n celebrated the Paschal festival after the manner followed in\n Asia Minor along with the Apostle John. No common agreement was\n reached at this time; but, in token of their undisturbed church\n fellowship, Anicetus allowed Polycarp to dispense the communion\n in his church. Some fifteen years later a party, not distinctly\n particularised, obtained at Laodicea in Phrygia sanction for\n the Ebionite practice with strict observance of the time of\n the Passover, and awakened thereby a lively controversy in the\n church of Asia Minor, in which opposite sides were taken by the\n Apologists, Apollinaris and Melito (\u00a7 30, 7). The dispute assumed\n more serious dimensions about A.D. 196 through the passionate\n proceedings of the Roman bishop Victor. Roused probably by the\n agitation of a Quartodeciman named Blastus then in Rome, he urged\n upon the most distinguished bishops of the East and West the\n need of holding a Synod to secure the unequivocal vindication\n of the Roman practice. On this account many Synods were held,\n which almost invariably gave a favourable verdict. Only those\n of Asia Minor with Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus at their head,\n entered a vigorous protest against the pretensions of Rome, and\n notwithstanding all the Roman threatenings determined to stand\n by their own well established custom. Victor now went the length\n of breaking off church fellowship with them, but this extreme\n procedure met with little favour. Even Iren\u00e6us expressed himself\n to the Gallican bishops as opposed to it.--Continuation \u00a7 56, 3.\n\n \u00a7 37.3. =The Ecclesiastical Institution of Fasting.=--The\n Didache gives evidence that even at so early a date, the regular\n fasts were religiously observed on the _Dies stationum_ by\n expressly forbidding fasting \u201cwith hypocrites\u201d (Jews and Jewish\n Christians, Luke xviii. 12) on Monday and Thursday, instead of\n the Christian practice of so observing Wednesday and Friday. The\n usual fast continued as a rule only till three o\u2019clock in the\n afternoon (Semijejunia, Acts x. 9, 30; iii. 1). In Passion week\n the Saturday night, which, at other times, just like the Sunday,\n was excluded from the fasting period, as part of the day during\n which Christ lay buried, was included in the forty-hours\u2019 fast,\n representing the period during which Christ lay in the grave.\n This was afterwards gradually lengthened out into the forty-days\u2019\n fast of Lent (Exod. xxxiv. 28; 1 Kings xix. 8; Matt. iv. 2), in\n which, however, the _jejunium_ proper was limited to the _Dies\n Stationum_, and for the rest of the days only the \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9,\n first forbidden by the Montanists (\u00a7 40, 4), _i.e._ all fattening\n foods, such as flesh, eggs, butter, cheese, milk, etc., were\n abstained from.--On fasting preparatory to baptism, see \u00a7 35, 1.\n The Didache, c. i. 3, adds to the gospel injunction that we should\n pray for our persecutors (Matt. v. 44) the further counsel that\n we should fast for them. The meaning of the writer seems to be\n that we should strengthen our prayers for persecutors by fasting.\n Hermas, on the other hand, recommends fasting in order that we may\n thereby spare something for the poor; and Origen says that he read\n _in quodam libello_ as _ab apostolis dictum: Beatus est, qui etiam\n jejunat pro eo ut alat pauperem_.\n\n\n \u00a7 38. THE CHURCH BUILDINGS AND THE CATACOMBS.\n\n The earliest certain traces of special buildings for divine worship\nwhich had been held previously in private houses of Christians are met\nwith in Tertullian about the end of the 2nd century. In Diocletian\u2019s\ntime Nicomedia became a royal residence and hard by the emperor\u2019s\npalace a beautiful church proudly reared its head (\u00a7 22, 6), and even\nin the beginning of the 3rd century Rome had forty churches. We know\nlittle about the form and arrangement of these churches. Tertullian\nand Cyprian speak of an altar or table for the preparation of the\nLord\u2019s supper and a desk for the reading, and in the _Apostolic\nConstitutions_ it is required that the building should be oblong in\nshape. The wide-spread tradition that in times of sore persecution\nthe worshippers betook themselves to the Catacombs is evidently\ninconsistent with the limited space which these afforded. On the\nother hand, the painter whose works, by a decree of a Spanish Council\nin A.D. 306, were banished from the churches, found here a suitable\nplace for the practice of sacred art.\n\n \u00a7 38.1. =The Catacombs.=--The Christian burying places were\n generally called \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, _Dormitoria_. They were laid out\n sometimes in the open fields (_Are\u00e6_), sometimes, where the\n district was suitable for that, hewn out in the rock (\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n crypts). This latter term was, by the middle of the 4th century,\n quite interchangeable with the name _Catacumb\u00e6_, (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c2=in\n the caves). The custom of laying the dead in natural or rock-hewn\n caves was familiar to pagan antiquity, especially in the East.\n But the recesses used for this purpose were only private or family\n vaults. Their growth into catacombs or subterranean necropolises\n for larger companies bound together by their one religion without\n distinctions of rank (Gal. iii. 28), first arose on Christian\n soil from a consciousness that their fellowship transcended death\n and the grave. For the accomplishment of this difficult and costly\n undertaking, Christian burial societies were formed after the\n pattern of similar institutions of paganism (\u00a7 17, 3). Specially\n numerous and extensive necropolises have been found laid out in\n the immediate neighbourhood of Rome. But also in Malta, in Naples,\n Syracuse, Palermo, and other cities, this mode of sepulchre\n found favour. The Roman catacombs, of which in the hilly district\n round about the eternal city fifty-eight have been counted in\n fourteen different highways, are almost all laid out in the white\n porous tufa stone which is there so abundant, and useful neither\n for building nor for mortar. It is thus apparent that these are\n neither wrought-out quarries nor gravel pits (_Arenari\u00e6_), but\n were set in order from the first as cemeteries. A few _Arenari\u00e6_\n may indeed have been used as catacombs, but then the sides with\n the burial niches consist of regularly built walls. The Roman\n Catacombs in the tufa stone form labyrinthine, twisting, steep\n galleries only 3 or 4 feet broad, with rectangular corners caused\n by countless intersections. Their perpendicular sides varied\n greatly in height and in them the burial niches, _Loculi_, were\n hewn out one above the other, and on the reception of the body\n were built up or hermetically sealed with a stone slab bearing\n an inscription and a Christian symbol. The wealthy laid their\n dead in costly marble sarcophagi or stone coffins ornamented with\n bas-reliefs. The walls too and the low-arched roofs were adorned\n with symbols and pictures of scripture scenes. From the principal\n passages many side paths branched off to so-called burial\n chambers, _Cubicula_, which were furnished with shafts opening\n up to the surface and affording air and light, _Luminaria_. In\n many of these chambers, sometimes even in the passages, instead\n of simple _Loculi_ we meet with the so-called _Arcosolium_ as the\n more usual form; one or more coffin-shaped grooves hewn out in the\n rocky wall are covered with an altar-shaped marble plate, and over\n this plate, _Mensa_, is a semicircular niche hewn out spreading\n over it in its whole extent. These chambers are often held\n in reverence as \u201ccatacomb churches,\u201d but they are so small in\n size that they could only accommodate a very limited number,\n such as might gather perhaps at the commemoration of a martyr or\n the members of a single family. And even where two or three such\n chambers adjoin one another, connected together by doors and\n having a common lighting shaft, accommodating at furthest about\n twenty people, they could not be regarded as meeting-places for\n public congregations properly so called.--Where the deposit of\n tufa stone was sufficiently large, there were several stories\n (_Piani_), as many as four or five connected by stairs, laid\n out one above the other in galleries and chambers. According to\n _de Rossi\u2019s_[103] moderate calculation there have been opened\n altogether up to this time so many passages in the catacombs\n that if they were put in a line they would form a street of\n 120 geographical miles. Their oldest inscriptions or epitaphs date\n from the first years of the second century. After the destruction\n of Rome by the hordes of Alaric in A.D. 410, the custom of burying\n in them almost entirely ceased. Thereafter they were used only\n as places of pilgrimage and spots where martyr\u2019s relics were\n worshipped. From this time the most of the so-called _Graffiti_,\n _i.e._ scribblings of visitors on the walls, consisting of pious\n wishes and prayers, had their origin. The marauding expedition of\n the Longobard Aistulf into Roman territory in A.D. 756, in which\n even the catacombs were stripped of their treasures, led Pope\n Paul I. to transfer the relics of all notable martyrs to their\n Roman churches and cloisters. Then pilgrimages to the catacombs\n ceased, their entrances got blocked up, and the few which in later\n times were still accessible, were only sought out by a few novelty\n hunting strangers. Thus the whole affair was nigh forgotten until\n in A.D. 1578 a new and lively interest was awakened by the chance\n opening up again of one of those closed passages. Ant. Bosio from\n A.D. 1593 till his death in A.D. 1629, often at the risk of his\n life, devoted all his time and energies to their exploration. But\n great as his discoveries were, they have been completely outdone\n by the researches of the Roman nobleman, Giov. Battista de Rossi,\n who, working unweariedly at his task since A.D. 1849 till the\n present time, is recognised as the great master of the subject,\n although even his investigations are often too much dominated\n by Roman Catholic prejudices and by undue regard for traditional\n views.[104]\n\n \u00a7 38.2. =The Antiquities of the Catacombs.=--The custom widely\n spread in ancient times and originating in piety or superstition\n of placing in the tombs the utensils that had been used by\n the deceased during life was continued, as the contents of\n many burial niches show among the early Christians. Children\u2019s\n toys were placed beside them in the grave, and the clothes,\n jewels, ornaments, amulets, etc., of grown up people. Quite a\n special interest attaches to the so-called Blood Vases, _Phiol\u00e6\n rubricat\u00e6_, which have been found in or near many of these niches,\n _i.e._ crystal, rarely earthenware, vessels with Christian symbols\n figured on a red ground. The _Congregation of rites and relics_\n in A.D. 1668, asserted that they were blood-vessels, in which the\n blood of the martyrs had been preserved and stood alongside of\n their bones; and the existence of such jars, as well as every\n pictorial representation of the palm branch (Rev. vii. 9),\n was supposed to afford an indubitable proof that the niches\n in question contained the bones of martyrs. But the Reformed\n theologian Basnage shows that this assumption is quite untenable,\n and he has explained the red ground from the dregs of the red\n sacramental wine which may have been placed in the burial niches\n as a protection against demoniacal intrusion. Even many good\n Roman Catholic arch\u00e6ologists, Mabillon, Papebroch, Tillemont,\n Muratori, etc., contest or express doubts as to the decree of the\n _Congregation_. At the instigation probably of the Belgian Jesuit\n Vict. de Buck, Pius IX. in A.D. 1863 confirmed and renewed the\n old decree, and among others, Xav. Kraus has appeared as its\n defender. But a great multitude of unquestionable facts contradict\n the official decree of the church; _e.g._ the total absence\n of any support to this view in tradition, the silence of such\n inscriptions as relate to the martyrs, above all the immense\n number of these jars, their being found frequently alongside the\n bones of children of seven years old, the remarkable frequency\n of them in the times of Constantine and his successors which were\n free from persecution, the absence of the red dregs in many jars,\n etc. Since dregs of wine, owing to their having the vegetable\n property of combinableness could scarcely be discernible down\n to the present day, it has recently been suggested that the red\n colour may have been produced by a mineral-chemical process as\n oxide of iron.\n\n \u00a7 38.3. =Pictorial Art and the Catacombs.=--Many of the earliest\n Christians may have inherited a certain dislike of the pictorial\n arts from Judaism, and may have been confirmed therein by their\n abhorrence of the frivolous and godless abuse of art in heathenism.\n But this aversion which in a Tertullian grew from a Montanistic\n rigorism into a fanatical hatred of art, is never met with as a\n constituent characteristic of Christianity. Much rather the great\n abundance of paintings on the walls of the Roman and Neapolitan\n catacombs, of which many, and these not the meanest, belong\n to the 2nd century, some indeed perhaps to the last decades of\n the 1st century, serves to show how general and lively was the\n artistic sense among the earliest Christians at least in the\n larger and wealthier communities. Yet from its circumstances the\n Christian church in its appreciation of art was almost necessarily\n limited on two sides; for, on the one hand, no paintings were\n tolerated in the churches, and on the other hand, even in private\n houses and catacombs they were restricted almost exclusively to\n symbolico-allegorical or typical representations. The 36th Canon\n of the Council of Elvira in A.D. 306 is a witness for the first\n statement when it says: _Placuit picturas in ecclesia non esse\n debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur_.\n The plain words of the Canon forbid any other interpretation\n than this: From the churches, as places where public worship is\n regularly held, all pictorial representations must be banished,\n in order to make certain that in and under them there might not\n creep in those images, forbidden in the decalogue, of Him who\n is the object of worship and adoration. The Council thus assumed\n practically the same standpoint as the Reformed church in the\n 16th century did in opposition to the practice of the Roman\n Catholic and Lutheran churches. It cannot, however, be maintained\n that the Canon of this rigorous Council (\u00a7 45, 2) found general\n acceptance and enforcement outside of Spain--Proof of the\n second limitation is as convincingly afforded by what we find\n in the catacombs. On the positive side, it has its roots in the\n fondness which prevailed during these times for the mystical and\n allegorical interpretation of scripture; and on the negative side,\n in the endeavour, partly in respect for the prohibition of images\n contained in the decalogue, partly, and perhaps mainly, in the\n interests of the so-called _Disciplina arcani_, fostered under\n pressure of persecution, to represent everything that pertained\n to the mysteries of the Christian faith as a matter which only\n Christians have a right fully to understand. From the prominence\n given to the point last referred to it may be explained how\n amid the revolution that took place under Constantine the age of\n Symbolism and Allegory in the history of Christian art also passed\n away, and henceforth painters applied themselves pre-eminently to\n realistic historical representations.\n\n \u00a7 38.4. The pictorial and artistic representations of\n the pre-Constantine age may be divided into the six following\n groups:--\n\n a. =Significant Symbols.=--To these belong especially _the\n cross_,[105] though, for fear of the reproaches of Jews\n and heathens (\u00a7 23, 2), not yet in its own proper form but\n only in a form that indicated what was meant, namely in\n the form of the Greek \u03a4, very frequently in later times in\n the monogram of the name of Christ, _i.e._ in a variously\n constructed combination of its first two letters \u03a7 and \u03a1,\n while the \u03a7, as _crux dissimulat\u00e6_, has very often on\n either side the letters \u03b1 and \u03c9.\n\n b. =Allegorical Figures.=--In the 4th century a particularly\n favourite figure was that of the _Fish_, the name of\n which, \u1f30\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03c2, formed a highly significant monogrammatic\n representation of the sentence, \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, and which pointed strikingly to the new birth from\n the water of baptism. Then there is the _lamb_ or _sheep_,\n as symbol of the soul, which still in this life seeks\n after spiritual pastures; and the _dove_ as symbol of\n the pious believing soul passing into eternal rest, often\n with an _olive branch_ in its mouth (Gen. viii. 11), as\n symbol of the eternal peace won. Also we have the _hart_\n (Ps. xlii. 1), the _eagle_ (Ps. ciii. 5), the _chicken_,\n symbol of Christian growth, the _peacock_, symbol of\n the resurrection on account of the annual renewal of its\n beautiful plumage, the _dolphin_, symbol of hastiness\n or eagerness in the appropriation of salvation, _the\n horse_, symbol of the race unto the goal of eternal life,\n _the hare_, as symbol of the Christian working out his\n salvation with fear and trembling, _the ship_, with\n reference to Noah\u2019s ark as a figure of the church, _the\n anchor_ (Heb. vi. 19), _the lyre_ (Eph. v. 19), _the palm\n branch_ (Rev. vii. 9), _the garland_ (or crown of life,\n Rev. ii. 9), _the lily_ (Matt. vi. 28), _the balances_,\n symbol of divine righteousness, _fishes and bread_,\n symbol of spiritual nourishment with reference to Christ\u2019s\n miracle of feeding in the wilderness, etc.\n\n c. =Parabolic Figures.=--These are illustrations borrowed from\n the parables of the Gospels. To these belong conspicuously\n the figure of the _Good Shepherd_, who bears on His\n shoulder the lost sheep that He had found (Luke xv. 5),\n the _Vine Stock_ (John xv.), the _Sower_ (Matt. xiii. 3),\n the _Marriage Feast_ (Matt. xxii.), the _Ten Virgins_\n (Matt. xxv.), etc.\n\n d. =Historical Pictures of O. T. Types.=--Among these we\n have Adam and Eve, the Rivers of Paradise (as types of\n the four evangelists), Abel and Cain, Noah in the Ark, the\n Sacrifice of Isaac, Scenes from Joseph\u2019s History, Moses at\n the Burning Bush, the Passage of the Red Sea, the Falling\n of the Manna, the Water out of the Rock, History of Job,\n Samson with the Gates of Gaza (the gates of Hell), David\u2019s\n Victory over Goliath, Elijah\u2019s Ascension, Scenes from the\n History of Jonah and Tobit, Daniel in the Lion\u2019s Den, the\n Three Children in the Fiery Furnace, etc. Also typical\n material from heathen mythology had a place assigned them,\n such as the legends of Hercules, Theseus, and especially\n of Orpheus who by his music bewitched the raging elements\n and tamed the wild beasts, descended into the lower world\n and met his death through the infuriated women of his own\n race.\n\n e. =Figures from the Gospel History.=--These, _e.g._ the\n Visit of the Wise Men from the East, and the Resurrection\n of Lazarus, are throughout this period still exceedingly\n rare. We do not find a single representation of the\n Passion of our Lord, nor any of the sufferings of Christian\n martyrs. Pictorial representations of the person of Christ,\n as a beardless youth with a friendly mild expression,\n are met with in the catacombs from the first half of the\n 2nd century, but without any claim to supply the likeness\n of a portrait, such as might be claimed for the figures of\n Christ in the temple of the Carpocratians (\u00a7 27, 8) and in\n the Lararium of the Emperor Alexander Severus (\u00a7 22, 4).\n Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, in accordance with\n the literal interpretation of Isa. liii. 2, 3, thought\n that Christ had an unattractive face; the post-Constantine\n fathers, on the contrary, resting upon Ps. xlv. 3 and\n John i. 14, thought of Him as beautiful and gracious.\n\n f. =Liturgical Figures.=--These were connected only with the\n ordinances of baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper.\n\n\n \u00a7 39. LIFE, MANNERS, AND DISCIPLINE.[106]\n\n When the chaff had been so relentlessly severed from the wheat\nby the persecutions of that age, a moral earnestness and a power of\ndenying the world and self must have been developed, sustained by\nthe divine power of the gospel and furthered by a strict and rigorous\napplication of church discipline to the Christian life, such as the\nworld had never seen before. What most excited and deserved wonder\nin the sphere of heathendom, hitherto accustomed only to the reign\nof selfishness, was the brotherly love of the Christians, their\nsystematic care of the poor and sick, the widespread hospitality,\nthe sanctity of marriage, the delight in martyrdom, etc. Marriages\nwith Jews, heathens and heretics were disapproved, frequently even the\ncelebration of a second marriage after the death of the first wife was\ndisallowed. Public amusements, dances, and theatres were avoided by\nChristians as _Pompa diaboli_. They thought of the Christian life,\nin accordance with Eph. vi. 10 ff., as _Militia Christi_. But even\nin the Post-Apostolic Age we come upon indications of a tendency to\nturn from the evangelical spirituality, freedom and simplicity of the\nApostolic Age toward a pseudo-catholic externalism and legalism in the\nfundamental views taken of ethical problems, and at the same time and\nin the same way in the departments of the church constitution (\u00a7 34),\nworship (\u00a7 36) and exposition of doctrine (\u00a7 30, 2). The teachers of\nthe church do still indeed maintain the necessity of a disposition\ncorresponding to the outward works, but by an over-estimation of\nthese they already prepare the way for the doctrine of merit and the\n_opus operatum_, _i.e._ the meritoriousness of works in themselves.\nEven the _Epistle of Barnabas_ and the _Didache_ reckon almsgiving\nas an atonement for sins. Still more conspicuously is this tendency\nexhibited by _Cyprian_ (_De Opere et eleemosynis_) and even in\nthe _Shepherd of Hermas_ (\u00a7 30, 4) we find the beginnings of the\nlater distinction, based upon 1 Cor. vii. 25, 26; Matt. xxv. 21, and\nLuke xviii. 10, between the divine commands, _Mandata_ or _Pr\u00e6cepta_,\nwhich are binding upon all Christians, and the evangelical counsels,\n_Consilia evangelica_, the non-performance of which is no sin, but the\ndoing of which secures a claim to merit and more full divine approval.\nAmong the Alexandrian theologians, too, under the influence of the\nGreek philosophy a very similar idea was developed in the distinction\nbetween higher and lower morality, after the former of which the\nChristian sage (\u1f41 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2) is required to shine, while the ordinary\nChristian may rest satisfied with the latter. On such a basis a\nspecial order of Ascetics very early made its appearance in the\nchurches. Those who went the length of renouncing the world and\ngoing out into the wilderness were called Anchorets. This order\nfirst assumed considerable dimensions in the 4th century (\u00a7 44).\n\n \u00a7 39.1. =Christian Morals and Manners.=--The Christian spirit\n pervaded the domestic and civil life and here formed for itself\n a code of Christian morals. It expressed itself in the family\n devotions and family communions (\u00a7 36, 3), in putting the sign\n of the cross upon all callings in life, in the Christian symbols\n (\u00a7 38, 3) with which dwellings, garments, walls, lamps, cups,\n glasses, rings, etc. were adorned. As to private worship the\n Didache requires without fixing the hours that the head of the\n household shall have prayers three times a day (Dan. vi. 30),\n meaning probably, as with Origen, morning, noon, and night.\n Tertullian specifies the 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours as the hours\n of prayer, and distinctly demands a separate morning and evening\n prayer.--The concluding of marriage according to the then existing\n Roman law had to be formally carried through by the expressed\n agreement of the parties in the presence of witnesses, and this\n on the part of the church was regarded as valid. The Christian\n custom required that there should be a previous making of it\n known, _Professio_, to the bishop, and a subsequent going to the\n church of the newly married pair in order that, amid the church\u2019s\n intercessions and the priestly benediction, a religious sanction\n might be given to their marriage covenant, by the oblation\n and common participation of the Lord\u2019s Supper at the close of\n the public services. Tertullian\u2019s Montanistic rigorism shows\n itself in regarding marriages where these are omitted, _occult\u00e6\n conjunctiones_, as no better than _m\u0153chia_ and _fornicatio_. The\n crowning of the two betrothed ones and the veiling of the bride\n were still disallowed as heathenish practices; but the use of the\n wedding ring was sanctioned at an early date and had a Christian\n significance attached to it. The burning of dead bodies prevalent\n among the heathens reminded them of hell fire; the Christians\n therefore preferred the Jewish custom of burial and referred in\n support to 1 Cor. xv. 36. The day of the deaths of their deceased\n members were celebrated in the Christian families by prayer and\n oblations in testimony of their fellowship remaining unbroken by\n death and the grave.--Continuation \u00a7 61, 2, 3.\n\n \u00a7 39.2. =The Penitential Discipline.=--According to the\n Apostolic ordinance (\u00a7 17, 8) notorious sinners were excluded\n from the fellowship of the church, _Excommunicatio_, and only\n after prolonged trial of their penitence, _Exomologesis_,\n were they received back again, _Reconciliatio_. In the time\n of Cyprian, about A.D. 250, there was already a well defined\n order of procedure in this matter of restoring the lapsed which\n continued in force until the 5th century. Penance, _P\u0153nitentia_,\n must extend through four stages, each of which according to\n circumstances might require one or more years. During the first\n stage, the \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, _Fletio_, the penitents, standing at\n the church doors in mourning dress, made supplication to the\n clergy and the congregation for restoration; in the second,\n the \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, _Auditio_, they were admitted again to the reading\n of the scriptures and the sermon, but still kept in a separate\n place; in the third, \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, _Substratio_, they were allowed\n to kneel at prayer; and finally, in the fourth, \u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\n _Consistentia_, they took part again in the whole of the public\n services, with the exception of the communion which they were\n only allowed to look at standing. Then they received Absolution\n and Reconciliation (=_pacem dare_) in presence of the assembled\n and acquiescing congregation by the imposition of the hands\n of the bishop and the whole of the clergy, together with\n the brotherly kiss and the partaking of the communion. This\n procedure was directed against open and demonstrable sins\n of a serious nature against the two tables of the decalogue,\n against so called _deadly sins_, _Peccata_ or _crimina mortalia_,\n 1 John v. 16. Excommunication was called forth, on the one\n side, against idolatry, blasphemy, apostasy from the faith and\n abjuration thereof; on the other, against murder, adultery and\n fornication, theft and lying, perfidy and false swearing. Whether\n reconciliation was permissible in the case of any mortal sin at\n all, and if so, what particular sins might thus be treated, were\n questions upon which teachers of the church were much divided\n during the 3rd century. But only the Montanists and Novatians\n (\u00a7\u00a7 40, 41) denied the permissibility utterly and that in\n opposition to the prevailing practice of the church, which\n refused reconciliation absolutely only in cases of idolatry\n and murder, and sometimes also in the case of adultery.\n Even Cyprian at first held firmly by the principle that all\n mortal sins committed \u201cagainst God\u201d must be wholly excluded\n from the range of penitential discipline, but amid the horrors\n of the Decian persecution, which left behind it whole crowds\n of fallen ones, _Lapsi_ (\u00a7 22, 5), he was induced by the\n passionate entreaties of the church to make the concession that\n reconciliation should be granted to the _Libellatici_ after a\n full penitential course, but to the _Sacrificati_ only when in\n danger of death. All the teachers of the church, however, agree\n in holding that it can be granted only once in this life, and\n those who again fall away are cut off absolutely. But excessive\n strictness in the treatment of the penitents called forth the\n contrary extreme of undue laxity (\u00a7 41, 2). The _Confessors_\n frequently used their right of demanding the restoration of the\n fallen by means of letters of recommendation, _Libelli pacis_,\n to such an extent as to seriously interfere with a wholesome\n discipline.[107]--Continuation \u00a7 61, 1.\n\n \u00a7 39.3. =Asceticism.=--The Ascetism (_Continentia_, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1)\n of heathenism and Judaism, of Pythagoreanism and Essenism,\n resting on dualistic and pseudo-spiritualistic views, is\n confronted in Christianity with the proposition: \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd (1 Cor. iii. 21; vi. 12). Christianity, however, also\n recognised the ethical value and relative wholesomeness of a\n moderate asceticism in proportion to individual temperament,\n needs and circumstances (Matt. ix. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 5-7), without\n demanding it or regarding it as something meritorious. This\n evangelical moderation we also find still in the 2nd century,\n _e.g._ in Ignatius. But very soon a gradual exaggeration becomes\n apparent and an ever-advancing over estimation of asceticism as a\n higher degree of morality with claims to be considered peculiarly\n meritorious. The negative requirements of asceticism are directed\n first of all to frequent and rigid fasts and to celibacy or\n abstinence from marital intercourse; its positive requirements,\n to the exercise of the spiritual life in prayer and meditation.\n The most of the =Ascetics=, too, in accordance with Luke xviii. 24,\n voluntarily divested themselves of their possessions. The number\n of them, men and women, increased, and even in the first half\n of the 2nd century, they formed a distinct order in the church,\n though they were not yet bound to observe this mode of life by any\n irrevocable vows. The idea that the clergy were in a special sense\n called to an ascetic life resulted in their being designated the\n \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. Owing to the interpretation given to 1 Tim. iii. 2,\n second marriages were in the 2nd century prohibited among the\n clergy, and in the 3rd century it was regarded as improper for\n them after ordination to continue marital intercourse. But it was\n first at the Council of Elvira, in A.D. 306, that this opinion was\n elevated into a law, though it could not even then be rigorously\n enforced (\u00a7 45, 2).--The immoral practice of ascetics or clerics\n having with them virgins devoted to God\u2019s service as _Sorores_,\n \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b1\u03af on the ground of 1 Cor. ix. 5, with whom they were united\n in spiritual love, in order to show their superiority to the\n temptations of the flesh, seems to have been introduced as early\n as the 2nd century. In the middle of the 3rd century it was\n already widespread. Cyprian repeatedly inveighs against it.\n We learn from him that the so-called _Sorores_ slept with the\n Ascetics in one bed and surrendered themselves to the tenderest\n caresses. For proof of the purity of their relations they referred\n to the examinations of midwives. Among bishops, Paul of Samosata\n in Antioch (\u00a7 33, 8) seems to have been the first who favoured\n this evil custom by his own example. The popular wit of the\n Antiochenes [Antiocheans] invented for the more than doubtful\n relationship the name of the \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, _Subintroduct\u00e6_,\n _Agapet\u00e6_, _Extrene\u00e6_. Bishops and Councils sent forth strict\n decrees against the practice.--The most remarkable among the\n celebrated ascetics of the age was =Hieracas=, who lived at\n Leontopolis in Egypt toward the end of the 3rd and beginning of\n the 4th century and died there when ninety years old. A pupil\n of Origen, he was distinguished for great learning, favoured\n the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, a spiritualistic\n dogmatics and strict asceticism. Besides this he was a physician,\n astronomer and writer of hymns, could repeat by heart almost all\n the Old and New Testaments, wrote commentaries in Greek and Coptic,\n and gathered round him a numerous society of men and women, who\n accepted his ascetical principles and heterodox views. Founding\n upon Matt. xix. 12; 1 Cor. vii. and Heb. xii. 14, he maintained\n that celibacy was the only perfectly sure way to blessedness\n and commended this doctrine as the essential advance from the\n Old Testament to the New Testament morality. He even denied\n salvation to Christian children dying in infancy because they had\n not yet fought against sensuality, referring to 2 Tim. ii. 5. Of\n a sensible paradise he would hear nothing, and just as little of\n a bodily resurrection; for the one he interprets allegorically\n and the other spiritually. Epiphanius, to whom we owe any precise\n information that we have about him, is the first to assign him\n and his followers a place in the list of heretics.\n\n \u00a7 39.4. =Paul of Thebes.=--The withdrawal of particular\n ascetics from ascetical motives into the wilderness, which was\n a favourite craze for a while, may have been suggested by Old\n and New Testament examples, _e.g._ 1 Kings xvii. 3; xix. 4;\n Luke i. 80; iv. 1; but it was more frequently the result of sore\n persecution. Of a regular professional institution of anchorets\n with life-long vows there does not yet appear any authentic trace.\n According to Jerome\u2019s _Vita Pauli monachi_ a certain =Paul of\n Thebes= in Egypt, about A.D. 250, during the Decian persecution,\n betook himself, when sixteen years old, to the wilderness, and\n there forgotten by all the world but daily fed by a raven with\n half a loaf (1 Kings xvii. 4), he lived for ninety-seven years\n in a cave in a rock, until St. Anthony (\u00a7 44, 1), directed\n to him by divine revelation and led to him first by a centaur,\n half man, half horse, then by a fawn, and finally by a she-wolf,\n came upon him happily just when the raven had brought him as\n it never did before a whole loaf. He was just in time to be\n an eye-witness, not indeed of his death, but rather of his\n subsequent ascension into heaven, accompanied by angels, prophets\n and apostles, and to arrange for the burial of his mortal remains,\n for the reception of which two lions, uttering heart-breaking\n groans, dug a grave with their claws. These lions after earnestly\n seeking and obtaining a blessing from St. Anthony, returned back\n to their lair.--Contemporaries of the author, as indeed he himself\n tells, declared that the whole story was a tissue of lies. Church\n history, however, until quite recently, has invariably maintained\n that there must have been some historical foundation, though it\n might be very slight, for such a superstructure. But seeing that\n no single writer before Jerome seems to know even the name of Paul\n of Thebes and also that the _Vita Antonii_ ascribed to Athanasius\n knows nothing at all of such a wonderful expedition of the saint,\n Weingarten (\u00a7 44) has denied that there ever existed such a man\n as this Paul, and has pronounced the story of Jerome to be a\n monkish Robinson Crusoe, such as the popular taste then favoured,\n which the author put forth as true history _ad majorem monachatus\n gloriam_. We may simply apply to this book itself what Jerome\n at a later period confessed about his epistles of that same\n date _ad Heliodorum:--sed in illo opere pio \u00e6tate tunc lusimus\n et celentibus adhuc Rhetorum studiis atque doctrinis qu\u00e6dam\n scholastico flore depinximus_.\n\n \u00a7 39.5. =Beginning of Veneration of Martyrs.=--In very early\n times a martyr death was prized as a sin-atoning _Lavacrum\n sanguinis_, which might even abundantly compensate for the want\n of water baptism. The day of the martyr\u2019s death which was\n regarded as the day of his birth into a higher life, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1,\n _Natalitia martyrum_, was celebrated at his grave by prayers,\n oblations and administration of the Lord\u2019s Supper as a testimony\n to the continuance of that fellowship with them in the Lord that\n had been begun here below. Their bones were therefore gathered\n with the greatest care and solemnly buried; so _e.g._ Polycarp\u2019s\n bones at Smyrna (\u00a7 22, 2), as \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, so that at the spot where they were\n laid the brethren might be able to celebrate his \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u1fb7, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd. Of miracles wrought by means of\n the relics, however, we as yet find no mention. The _Graffiti_\n on the walls of the catacombs seem to represent the beginning\n of the invocation of martyrs. In these the pious visitors seek\n for themselves and those belonging to them an interest in the\n martyr\u2019s intercessions. Some of those scribblings may belong\n to the end of our period; at least the expression \u201c_Otia petite\n pro_,\u201d etc. in one of them seem to point to a time when they\n were still undergoing persecution. The greatest reverence, too,\n was shown to the _Confessors_ all through their lives, and great\n influence was assigned them in regard to all church affairs,\n _e.g._ in the election of bishops, the restoration of the fallen,\n etc.--Continuation, \u00a7 57.\n\n \u00a7 39.6. =Superstition.=--Just as in later times every great\n Christian missionary enterprise has seen religious ideas\n transferred from the old heathenism into the young Christianity,\n and, consciously or unconsciously, secretly or openly, acquiesced\n in or contended against, securing for themselves a footing, so\n also the Church of the first centuries did not succeed in keeping\n itself free from such intrusions. A superstition forcing its\n entrance in this way can either be taken over _nude crude_ in its\n genuinely pagan form and, in spite of its palpable inconsistency\n with the Christian faith, may nevertheless assert itself side\n by side with it, or it may divest itself of that old pagan form,\n and so unobserved and uncontested gain an entrance with its not\n altogether extinguished heathenish spirit into new Christian\n views and institutions and thus all the more dangerously make its\n way among them. It is especially the magico-theurgical element\n present in all heathen religions, which even at this early period\n stole into the Christian life and the services of the church\n and especially into the sacraments and things pertaining thereto\n (\u00a7 58), while it assumed new forms in the veneration of martyrs\n and the worship of relics. One can scarcely indeed accept as a\n convincing proof of this the statement of the Emperor Hadrian\n in his correspondence regarding the religious condition of\n Alexandria as given by the historian Vopiscus: _Illic qui\n Ser\u0101pem colunt Christiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi qui se\n Christi episcopos dicunt; nemo illic archisynagogus Jud\u00e6orum,\n nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presbyter non mathematicus,\n non haruspex, non aliptes_. This statement bears on its face\n too evidently the character of superficial observation, of vague\n hearsay and confused massing together of sundry reports. What\n he says of the worship of Serapis, may have had some support\n from the conduct of many Christians in the ascetic order, the\n designating of their presbyters _alipt\u00e6_ may have been suggested\n by the chrism in baptism and the anointing at the consecration\n of the clergy, perhaps also in the anointing of the sick\n (Matt. vi. 13; Jas. v. 14); so too the characterizing of them\n as _mathematici_ may have arisen from their determining the date\n of Easter by means of astronomical observations (\u00a7 37, 2; 56, 3),\n though it could not be specially wonderful if there actually\n were Christian scholars among the Alexandrian clergy skilled\n in astronomy, notwithstanding the frequent alliance of this\n science with astrology. But much more significant is the gross\n superstition which in many ways shows itself in so highly\n cultured a Christian as Julius Africanus in his _Cest\u00e6_ (\u00a7 31, 8).\n In criticising it, however, we should bear in mind that this book\n was written in the age of Alexander Severus, in which, on the one\n hand, a wonderful mixture of religion and theurgical superstition\n had a wonderful fascination for men, while on the Christian side\n the whirlwind of persecution had not for a long time blown its\n purifying breeze. The catacombs, too, afford some evidences of a\n mode of respect for the departed that was borrowed from heathen\n practices, but these on the whole are wonderfully free from\n traces of superstition.\n\n\n \u00a7 40. THE MONTANIST REFORMATION.[108]\n\n Earnest and strict as the moral, religious and ascetical requirements\nof the church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries generally were in regard\nto the life and morals of its members, and rigidly as these principles\nwere carried out in its penitential discipline, there yet appeared\neven at this early date, in consequence of various instances of the\nrelaxation of such strictness, certain eager spirits who clamoured\nfor a restoration or even an intensification of the earlier rules of\ndiscipline. Such a movement secured for itself a footing about the\nmiddle of the 2nd century in Montanism, a growth of Phrygian soil, which\nwithout traversing in any way the doctrine of the church, undertook\na thorough reformation of the ecclesiastical constitution on the\npractical side. Montanism, in opposition to the eclecticism of heretical\nGnosticism, showed the attitude of Christianity to heathenism to be\nexclusive; against the spiritualizing and allegorizing tendencies of the\nchurch Gnosticism it opposed the realism and literalism of the doctrines\nand facts of the scripture revelation; against what seemed the excessive\nsecularization of the church it presented a model of church discipline\nsuch as the nearness of the Lord\u2019s coming demanded; against hierarchical\ntendencies that were always being more and more emphasized it maintained\nthe rights of the laity and the membership of the church; while in order\nto secure the establishment of all these reforms it proclaimed that a\nprophetically inspired spiritual church had succeeded to Apostolic\nChristianity.\n\n \u00a7 40.1. =Montanism in Asia Minor.=--According to Epiphanius as\n early as A.D. 156, according to Eusebius in A.D. 172, according\n to Jerome in A.D. 171, a certain Montanus appeared as a prophet\n and church reformer at Pepuza in Phrygia. He was formerly a\n heathen priest and was only shortly before known as a Christian.\n He had visions, preached while unconscious in ecstasy of the\n immediate coming again of Christ (_Parousia_), fulminated against\n the advancing secularisation of the church, and, as the supposed\n organ of the _Paraclete_ promised by Christ (John xiv. 16)\n presented in their most vigorous form the church\u2019s demands in\n respect of morals and discipline. A couple of excited women\n _Prisca_ and _Maximilla_ were affected by the same extravagant\n spirit by which he was animated, fell into a somnambulistic\n condition and prophesied as he had done. On the death of\n Maximilla about A.D. 180, Montanus and Prisca having died\n before this, the supposed prophetic gift among them seems to\n have been quenched. At least an anonymous writer quoted in\n Eusebius (according to Jerome it was Rhodon, \u00a7 27, 12), in\n his controversial treatise published thirteen years afterwards,\n states that the voices of the prophets were then silent. So\n indeed she herself had declared: \u039c\u03b5\u03b8\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. The Montanist prophecies occasioned a mighty\n commotion in the whole church of Asia Minor. Many earnest\n Christians threw themselves eagerly into the movement. Even\n among the bishops they found here and there favour or else mild\n criticism, while others combated them passionately, some going\n so far as to regard the prophesying women as possessed ones and\n calling exorcism to their aid. By the end of the year 170 several\n synods, the first synods regularly convened, had been held\n against them, the final result of which was their exclusion from\n the catholic church. Montanus now organized his followers into an\n independent community. After his death, his most zealous follower,\n Alcibiades, undertook its direction. It was also not without\n literary defenders. Themison, Alcibiades\u2019 successor, issued \u201cin\n imitation of the Apostle\u201d (John?) a \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae, and the\n utterances of the prophets were collected and circulated as\n holy scripture. On the other hand during this same year 170 they\n were attacked by the eminent apologists Claudius Apollinaris\n and Miltiades (\u00a7 36, 9) probably also by Melito. Their radical\n opponents were the so-called _Alogi_ (\u00a7 33, 2). Among their later\n antagonists, who assumed more and more a passionately embittered\n tone, the most important according to Eusebius were one\n Apollinaris, whom Tertullian combats in the VII. Bk. of his\n work, _De ecstasi_, and Serapion. At a Synod at Iconium about\n the middle of the 3rd century at which also Firmilian of C\u00e6sarea\n (\u00a7 35, 5) was present and voted, the baptism of the Montanists,\n although their trinitarian orthodoxy could not be questioned,\n was pronounced to be like heretical baptism null, because\n administered _extra ecclesiam_, and a second baptism declared\n necessary on admission to the Catholic church. And although at the\n Council of Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325 and of Constantinople in A.D. 381,\n the validity of heretics\u2019 baptism was admitted if given orderly\n in the name of the Holy Trinity, the baptism of the Montanists was\n excluded because it was thought that the Paraclete of Montanism\n could not be recognised as the Holy Spirit of the church.--Already\n in the time of Constantine the Great the Montanists were spreading\n out from Phrygia over all the neighbouring provinces, and were\n called from the place where they originated \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 and\n Pepuziani. The Emperor now forbade them holding any public\n assemblies for worship and ordered that all places for public\n service should be taken from them and given over to the Catholic\n church. Far stricter laws than even these were enforced against\n them by later emperors down to the 5th century, _e.g._ prohibition\n of all Montanist writings, deprivation of almost all civil rights,\n banishment of their clergy to the mines, etc. Thus they could only\n prolong a miserable existence in secret, and by the beginning of\n the sixth century every trace of them had disappeared.\n\n \u00a7 40.2. =Montanism at Rome.=--The movement called forth by\n Montanism in the East spread by and by also into the West. When\n the first news reached Gaul of the synodal proceedings in Asia\n Minor that had rent the church, the Confessors imprisoned at\n Lyons and Vienne during the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, of\n whom more than one belonged to a colony that had emigrated from\n Phrygia to Gaul, were displeased, and, along with their report\n of the persecution they had endured (\u00a7 32, 8), addressed a letter\n to those of Asia Minor, not given by Eusebius, but reckoned pious\n and orthodox, exhorting to peace and the preservation of unity.\n At the same time (A.D. 177) they sent the Presbyter Iren\u00e6us to\n Rome in order to win from Bishop Eleutherus (A.D. 174-189), who\n was opposed to Montanism, a mild and pacific sentence. Owing,\n however, to the arrival of Praxeas, a Confessor of Asia Minor and\n a bitter opponent of Montanism, a formal condemnation was at last\n obtained (\u00a7 33, 4). Tertullian relates that the Roman bishop, at\n the instigation of Praxeas, revoked the letters of peace which\n had been already prepared in opposition to his predecessors.\n It is matter of controversy whether by this unnamed bishop\n Eleutherus is meant, who then was first inclined to a peaceable\n decision by Iren\u00e6us and thereafter by the picture of Montanist\n extravagances given by Praxeas was led again to form another\n opinion; or that it was, what seems from the chronological\n references most probable, his successor Victor (A.D. 189-199), in\n which case Eleutherus is represented as having hardened himself\n against Montanism in spite of the entreaties of Iren\u00e6us, while\n Victor was the first who for a season had been brought to think\n otherwise.--Yet even after their condemnation a small body of\n Montanists continued to exist in Rome, whose mouthpiece during\n the time of bishop Zephyrinus (A.D. 199-217) was Proclus, whom\n the Roman Caius (\u00a7 31, 7) opposed by word and writing.\n\n \u00a7 40.3. =Montanism in Proconsular Africa.=--When and how\n Montanism gained a footing in North Africa is unknown, but\n very probably it spread thither from Rome. The movement issuing\n therefrom first attracted attention when Tertullian, about\n A.D. 201 or 202, returned from Rome to Carthage, and with the\n whole energy of his character decided in its favour, and devoted\n his rich intellectual gifts to its advocacy. That the Montanist\n party in Africa at that time still continued in connection with\n the Catholic church is witnessed to by the Acts of the Martyrs\n Perpetua and Felicitas (\u00a7 32, 8), composed some time after this,\n which bear upon them almost all the characteristic marks of\n Montanism, while a vision communicated there shows that division\n was already threatened. The bishop and clergy together with the\n majority of the membership were decided opponents of the new\n ecstatic-visionary prophecy already under ecclesiastical ban in\n Asia Minor. They had not yet, however, come to an open breach\n with it, which was probably brought about in A.D. 206 when quiet\n had been again restored after the cessation of the persecution\n begun about A.D. 202 by Septimius Severus. Tertullian had stood\n at the head of the sundered party as leader of their sectarian\n services, and defended their prophesyings and rigorism in\n numerous apologetico-polemical writings with excessive bitterness\n and passion, applying them with consistent stringency to all the\n relations of life, especially on the ethical side. From the high\n esteem in which, notwithstanding his Montanist eccentricities,\n Tertullian\u2019s writings continued to be held in Africa, _e.g._\n by Cyprian (\u00a7 31, 11), and generally throughout the West, the\n tendency defended by him was not regarded in the church there as\n in the East as thoroughly heretical, but only as a separatistic\n overstraining of views allowed by the church. This mild estimate\n could all the easier win favour, since to all appearance the\n extravagant visionary prophesying, which caused most offence, had\n been in these parts very soon extinguished.--Augustine reports\n that a small body of \u201cTertullianists\u201d continued in Carthage\n down to his time (\u2020 430), and had by him been induced to return\n to the Catholic church; and besides this, he also tells us\n that Tertullian had subsequently separated himself from the\n \u201cCataphrygians,\u201d _i.e._ from the communion of the Montanists of\n Asia Minor, whose excesses were only then perhaps made known to\n him.\n\n \u00a7 40.4. =The Fundamental Principle of Montanism.=--Montanism\n arose out of a theory of a divinely educative revelation\n proceeding by advancing stages, not finding its conclusion in\n Christ and the Apostles, but in the age of the Paraclete which\n began with Montanus and in him reached its highest development.\n The times of the law and the prophets in the Old Covenant is\n the childhood of the kingdom of God; in the gospel it appears in\n its youth; and by the Montanist shedding forth of the Spirit it\n reaches the maturity of manhood. Its absolute perfection will be\n attained in the millennium introduced by the approaching Parousia\n and the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem at Pepuza (Rev. xx. 21).\n The Montanist prophecy did not enrich or expand but only\n maintained and established against the heretics, the system of\n Christian doctrine already exclusively revealed in the times of\n Christ. Montanism regarded as its special task a reformation of\n Christian life and Church discipline highly necessary in view of\n the approaching Parousia. The defects that had been borne with\n during the earlier stages of revelation were to be repaired or\n removed by the _Mandata_ of the Paraclete. The following are some\n of the chief of these prescriptions: Second marriage is adultery;\n Fasting must be practised with greater strictness; On _dies\n stationum_ (\u00a7 37, 3) nothing should be eaten until evening, and\n twice a year for a whole week only water and bread (\u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9);\n The excommunicated must remain their whole lifetime in _status\n p\u0153nitenti\u00e6_; Martyrdom should be courted, to withdraw in any way\n from persecution is apostasy and denial of the faith; Virgins\n should take part in the worship of God only when veiled; Women\n generally must put away all finery and ornaments; secular science\n and art, all worldly enjoyments, even those that seem innocent,\n are only snares of the devil, etc. An anti-hierarchical tendency\n early showed itself in Montanism from the circumstance that\n it arrogated to itself a new and high authority to which\n the hierarchical organs of the church refused to submit\n themselves. Yet even Montanism, after repudiating it, for its\n own self-preservation was obliged to give itself an official\n congregational organization, which, according to Jerome, had\n as its head a patriarch resident at Pepuza, and, according to\n Epiphanius, founding on Gal. iii. 28, gave even women admission\n into ecclesiastical offices. Its worship was distinguished\n only by the space given to the prophesyings of its prophets and\n prophetesses. Epiphanius notes this as a special characteristic\n of the sect, that often in their assemblies seven white-robed\n virgins with torches made their appearance prophesying; evidently,\n as the number seven itself shows, as representatives of the seven\n spirits of God (Rev. iv. 5, etc.), and not of the ten virgins\n who wait for the coming of the Lord. According to Philaster they\n allowed even unbaptized persons to attend all their services and\n were in the habit of baptizing even the dead, as is elsewhere\n told also of certain Gnostic sects. Epiphanius too speaks of a\n Montanist party which celebrated the Lord\u2019s Supper with bread and\n cheese, _Artotyrites_, according to Augustine, because the first\n men had presented offerings of the fruits of the earth and sheep.\n\n \u00a7 40.5. =The Attitude of Montanism toward the Church.=--The\n derivation of Montanism from Ebionism, contended for by Schwegler,\n has nothing in its favour and much against it. To disprove this\n notion it is enough to refer to the Montanist fundamental idea\n of a higher stage of revelation above Moses and the prophets as\n well as above the Messiah and His Apostles. Neither can we agree\n with Neander in regarding the peculiar character of the Phrygian\n people, as exhibited in their extravagant and fanatical worship\n of Cybele, as affording a starting point for the Montanist\n movement, but at most as a predisposition which rendered the\n inhabitants of this province peculiarly susceptible in presence\n of such a movement. The origin of Montanism is rather to be\n sought purely among the specifically Catholic conditions and\n conflicts within the church of Asia which at that time was\n pre-eminently gifted and active. In regard to dogma Montanism\n occupied precisely the same ground as the Catholic church;\n even upon the trinitarian controversies of the age it took up\n no sectarian position but went with the stream of the general\n development. Not on the dogmatical but purely on the practical\n side, namely, on that of the Christian life and ecclesiastical\n constitution, discipline and morals, lay the problems which by\n the action of the Montanists were brought into conflict. But\n even upon this side Montanism, with all its eccentricities, did\n not assume the attitude of an isolated separatistic sect, but\n rather as a quickening and intensifying of views and principles\n which from of old had obtained the recognition and sanction of\n the church,--views which on the wider spread of Christianity\n had already begun to be in every respect toned down or even\n obliterated, and just in this way called forth that reaction of\n enthusiasm which we meet with in Montanism. From the Apostles\u2019\n time the expectation of the early return of the Lord had stood\n in the foreground of Christian faith, hope and yearning, and\n this expectation continued still to be heartily entertained.\n Nevertheless the fulfilment had now been so long delayed that men\n were beginning to put this coming into an indefinitely distant\n future (2 Pet. iii. 4). Hence it happened that even the leaders\n of the church, in building up its hierarchical constitution and\n adjusting it to the social circumstances and conditions of life\n by which they were surrounded, made their arrangements more and\n more deliberately in view of a longer continuance of the present\n state of things, and thus the primitive Christian hope of an\n early Parousia, though not expressly denied, seemed practically\n to have been set aside. Hence the Montanist revivalists\n proclaimed this hope as most certain, giving a guarantee for it\n by means of a new divine revelation. Similarly too the moral,\n ascetic and disciplinary rigorism of the Montanist prophecy is\n to be estimated as a vigorous reaction against the mild practice\n prevailing in the church with its tendency to make concessions\n to human weakness, in favour of the strict exercise of church\n discipline in view of the nearness of the Parousia. Montanism\n could also justify the reappearance of prophetic gifts among\n its founders by referring to the historical tradition which from\n the Apostolic Age (Acts xi. 27 f.; xxi. 9) presented to view a\n series of famous prophets and prophetesses, endowed with ecstatic\n visionary powers. The exclusion of Montanism from the Catholic\n Church could not, therefore, have been occasioned either by its\n proclaiming an early Parousia or by its rigorism, or finally,\n even by its prophetic claims, but purely by its doctrine of the\n Paraclete. Under the pretence of instituting a new and higher\n stage of revelation, it had really undertaken to correct the\n moral and religious doctrines of Christ and the Apostles as\n defective and incomplete, and had thereby proved itself to the\n representatives of the church to be undoubtedly a pseudo-prophecy.\n The spiritual pride with which the Montanists proclaimed\n themselves to be the privileged people of the Holy Spirit,\n \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76, _Spirituales_ and characterized the Catholics as,\n on the contrary, \u03a8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76, _Carnales_, as also the assumption\n that chose their own obscure Pepuza for the site of the heavenly\n Jerusalem, and the manifold extravagances committed by their\n prophets and prophetesses in their ecstatic trances, must\n have greatly tended to create an aversion to every form of\n spiritualistic manifestation. The origin of Montanism, the\n contesting of it and its final expulsion, constitute indeed a\n highly significant crisis in the historical development of the\n church, conditioned not so much by a separatistic sectarian\n tendency, but rather by the struggle of two tendencies existing\n within the church, in which the tendency represented by Montanism\n and honestly endeavouring the salvation of the church, went\n under, while that which was victorious would have put an end\n to all enthusiasm. The expulsion of Montanism from the church\n contributed greatly to freeing the church from the reproach\n so often advanced against it of being a narrow sect, made its\n consenting to the terms, demands and conditions of everyday\n life in the world easier, gave a freer course and more powerful\n impulse to its development in constitution and worship dependent\n upon these, as well as in the further building up of its\n practical and scientific endeavours, and generally advanced\n greatly its expansion and transformation from a sectarian close\n association into a universal church opening itself up more and\n more to embrace all the interests of the culture of the age;--a\n transformation which indeed in many respects involved a\n secularizing of the church and imparted to its spiritual\n functions too much of an official and superficial character.\n\n\n \u00a7 41. SCHISMATIC DIVISIONS IN THE CHURCH.\n\n Even after the ecclesiastical sentence had gone forth against\nMontanism, the rigoristic penitential discipline in a form more or less\nsevere still found its representatives within the Catholic church. As\ncompared with the advocates of a milder procedure these were indeed\ngenerally in the minority, but this made them all the more zealously\ncontend for their opinions and endeavour to secure for them universal\nrecognition. Out of the contentions occasioned thereby, augmented by\nthe rivalry of presbyter and episcopus, or episcopus and metropolitan,\nseveral ecclesiastical divisions originated which, in spite of the\npressing need of the time for ecclesiastical unity, were long continued\nby ambitious churchmen in order to serve their own selfish ends.\n\n \u00a7 41.1. =The Schism of Hippolytus at Rome about A.D. 220.=--On\n what seems to have been the oldest attempt to form a sect at Rome\n over a purely doctrinal question, namely that of the Theodotians,\n about A.D. 210, see \u00a7 33, 3.--Much more serious was the schism of\n Hippolytus, which broke out ten years later. In A.D. 217, after\n an eventful and adventurous life, a freedman Callistus was raised\n to the bishopric of Rome, but not without strong opposition on\n the part of the rigorists, at whose head stood the celebrated\n presbyter Hippolytus. They charged the bishop with scoffing at\n all Christian earnestness, conniving at the loosening of all\n church discipline toward the fallen and sinners of all kinds, and\n denounced him especially as a supporter of the Noetian [No\u00ebtian]\n heresy (\u00a7 33, 5). They took great offence also at his previous\n life which his opponent Hippolytus (_Elench._, ix. 11 ff.) thus\n describes: When the slave of a Christian member of the imperial\n household, Callistus with the help of his lord established\n a bank; he failed, took to flight, was brought back, sprang into\n the sea, was taken out again and sent to the treadmill. At the\n intercession of Christian friends he was set free, but failing to\n satisfy his urgent creditors, he despairingly sought a martyr\u2019s\n death, for this end wantonly disturbed the Jewish worship, and\n was on that account scourged and banished to the Sardinian mines.\n At the request of bishop Victor the imperial concubine Marcia\n (\u00a7 22, 3) obtained the freedom of the exiled Christian confessors\n among whom Callistus, although his name had been intentionally\n omitted from the list presented by Victor, was included. After\n Victor\u2019s death he wormed himself into the favour of his weak\n successor Zephyrinus, who placed him at the head of his clergy,\n in consequence of which he was able by intrigues and craft\n to secure for himself the succession to the bishopric.--An\n opportunity of reconciliation was first given, it would seem,\n under Pontianus, the second successor of Callistus, by banishing\n the two rival chiefs to Sardinia. Both parties then united in\n making a unanimous choice in A.D. 235.[109]\n\n \u00a7 41.2. =The Schism of Felicissimus at Carthage in\n A.D. 250.=--Several presbyters in Carthage were dissatisfied with\n the choice of Cyprian as bishop in A.D. 248 and sought to assert\n their independence. At their head stood Novatus. Taking the\n law into their own hands they chose Felicissimus, the next\n head of the party, as a deacon. When Cyprian during the Decian\n persecution withdrew for a time from Carthage, they charged him\n with dereliction of duty and faint-heartedness. Cyprian, however,\n soon returned, A.D. 251, and now they used his strictness toward\n the _Lapsi_ as a means of creating a feeling against him. He\n expressed himself very decidedly as to the recklessness with\n which many confessors gave without examination _Libelli pacis_\n to the fallen, and called upon these to commit their case to a\n Synod that should be convened after the persecution. A church\n visitation completed the schism; the discontented presbyters\n without more ado received all the fallen and, notwithstanding\n that Cyprian himself on the return of persecution introduced\n a milder practice, they severed themselves from him under an\n opposition bishop Fortunatus. Only by the unwearied exercise of\n wisdom and firmness did Cyprian succeed in putting down the\n schism.[110]\n\n \u00a7 41.3. =The Schism of the Presbyter Novatian at Rome in\n A.D. 251.=--In this case the rigorist and presbyterial interests\n coincide. After the martyrdom of bishop Fabian under Decian in\n A.D. 250, the Roman bishopric remained vacant for more than a\n year. His successor Cornelius (A.D. 251-253) was an advocate\n of the milder practice. At the head of his rigorist opponents\n stood his unsuccessful rival, Novatian, a learned but ambitious\n presbyter (\u00a7 31, 12). Meanwhile Novatus, excommunicated by Cyprian\n at Carthage, had also made his way to Rome. Notwithstanding his\n having previously maintained contrary principles in the matter\n of church discipline, he attached himself to the party of the\n purists and urged them into schism. They now chose Novatian as\n bishop. Both parties sought to obtain the recognition of the most\n celebrated churches. In doing so Cornelius described his opponent\n in the most violent and bitter manner as a mere intriguer,\n against whose reception into the number of presbyters as one\n who had received clinical baptism (\u00a7 35, 3) and especially\n as an energoumenon under the care of the exorcists, he had\n already protested; further as having extorted a sham episcopal\n consecration from three simple Italian bishops, after he had\n attached them to himself by pretending to be a peacemaker, then\n locking them up and making them drunk, etc. Cyprian, as well as\n Dionysius of Alexandria, expressed himself against Novatian, and\n attacked the principles of his party, namely, that the church has\n no right to give assurance of forgiveness to the fallen or such\n as have broken their baptismal vows by grievous sin (although\n the possibility of finding forgiveness through the mercy of\n God was indeed admitted), and that the church as a communion of\n thoroughly pure members should never endure any impure ones in\n its bosom, nor receive back any excommunicated ones, even after\n a full ecclesiastical course of penitence. The Novatianists had\n therefore called themselves the \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03af. The moral earnestness of\n their fundamental principles secured for them even from bishops\n of contrary views an indulgent verdict, and Novatianist churches\n sprang up over almost all the Roman empire. The \u0152cumenical\n Council at Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325 maintained an attitude toward them\n upon the whole friendly, and in the Arian controversy (\u00a7 50) they\n stood faithfully side by side with their ecclesiastical opponents\n in the defence of Nicene orthodoxy, and with them suffered\n persecution from the Arians. Later on, however, the Catholic\n church without more ado treated them as heretics. Theodosius\n the Great sympathizing with them because of such unfair treatment,\n took them under his protection; but Honorius soon again withdrew\n these privileges from them. Remnants of the party continued\n nevertheless to exist down to the 6th century.[111]\n\n \u00a7 41.4. =The Schism of Meletius in Egypt in A.D. 306.=--Meletius,\n bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid, a representative of the\n rigorist party, during the Diocletian persecution claimed to\n confer ordinations and otherwise infringed upon the metropolitan\n rights of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a supporter of the\n milder practice who for the time being lived in retirement. All\n warnings and admonitions were in vain. An Egyptian Synod under\n the presidency of Peter issued a decree of excommunication and\n deposition against him. Then arose the schism, A.D. 306, which\n won the whole of Egypt. The General Synod at Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325\n confirmed the Alexandrian bishop in his rights of supremacy\n (\u00a7 46, 3) and offered to all the Meletian bishops an amnesty\n and confirmation in the succession on the death of the catholic\n anti-bishop of their respective dioceses. Many availed themselves\n of this concession, but others persisted in their schismatical\n course and finally attached themselves to the Arian party\n (\u00a7 50, 2).\n\n\n\n\n SECOND SECTION.\n\n The History of the Gr\u00e6co-Roman Church from\n the 4th-7th centuries.\n A.D. 323-692.\n\n\n I. CHURCH AND STATE.\n\n\n \u00a7 42. THE OVERTHROW OF PAGANISM IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.[112]\n\n After the overthrow of Licinius (\u00a7 22, 7) Constantine identified\nhimself unreservedly with Christianity, but accepted baptism only\nshortly before his death in A.D. 337. He was tolerant toward paganism,\nthough encouraging its abandonment in all possible ways. His sons,\nhowever, began to put it down by violence. Julian\u2019s short reign was\na historical anomaly which only proved that paganism did not die a\nviolent death, but rather gradually succumbed to a _Marasmus senilis_.\nSucceeding emperors reverted to the policy of persecution and\nextermination.--Neoplatonism, notwithstanding the patronage of\nJulian and the brilliant reputation of its leading representatives,\ncould not reach the goal arrived at, but from the ethereal heights of\nphilosophical speculation sank ever further and further into the misty\nregion of fantastic superstition (\u00a7 24, 2). The attempts at regeneration\nmade by the _Hypsistarians_, _Euphemites_, _C\u0153licol\u00e6_, in which paganism\nstrove after a revival by means of a barren Jewish monotheism or an\neffete Sabaism, proved miserable failures. The literary conflict between\nChristianity and paganism had almost completely altered its tone.\n\n \u00a7 42.1. =The Romish Legend of the Baptism of Constantine.=--That\n Constantine the Great only accepted baptism shortly before his\n death in Nicomedia, from Eusebius, bishop of that place, and a\n well-known leader of the Arian party (\u00a7 50, 1, 2), is put beyond\n question by the evidence of his contemporary Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea\n in his _Vita Const._, of Ambrose, of Jerome in his Chronicle,\n etc. About the end of the 5th century, however, a tradition,\n connecting itself with the fact that a Roman baptistery bore\n the name of Constantine, gained currency in Rome, to the effect\n that Constantine had been baptised at this baptistery more than\n twenty years before his death by Pope Sylvester (A.D. 314-335).\n According to this purely fabulous legend Constantine, who\n had up to that time been a bitter enemy and persecutor of the\n Christians, became affected with leprosy, for the cure of which\n he was recommended to bathe in a tub filled with the blood\n of an innocent child. Moved by the tears of the mother the\n emperor rejected this means of cure, and under the direction of\n a heavenly vision applied to the Pope, who by Christian baptism\n delivered him from his malady, whereupon all the members of the\n Roman senate still heathens, and all the people were straightway\n converted to Christ, etc. This legend is told in the so-called\n _Decretum Gelasii_ (\u00a7 47, 22), but is first vindicated as\n historically true in the _Liber pontificalis_ (\u00a7 90, 6), and\n next in A.D. 729, in Bede\u2019s Chronicle (\u00a7 90, 2). In the notorious\n _Donatio Constantini_ (\u00a7 87, 4) it is unhesitatingly accepted.\n Since then, at first with some exceptions but soon without\n exceptions, all chroniclers of the Middle Ages and likewise since\n the 9th century the _Scriptores hist. Byzant._, have adopted\n it. And although in the 15th century \u00c6neas Sylvius and Nicolaus\n [Nicolas] of Cusa admitted that the legend was without foundation,\n yet in the 16th century in Baronius and Bellarmine, and in\n the 17th in Schelstraate, it found earnest defenders. The\n learned French Benedictines of the 17th century were the first\n to render it utterly incredible even in the Roman Catholic\n church.[113]\n\n \u00a7 42.2. =Constantine the Great and his Sons.=--Constantine\u2019s\n profession of Christianity was not wholly the result of political\n craft, though his use of the name _Pontifex Maximus_ and in\n this capacity the continued exercise of certain pagan practices,\n gave some colour to such an opinion. Outbursts of passion,\n impulsiveness exhibited in deeds of violence and cruelty, as in\n the order for the execution of his eldest son Crispus in A.D. 326\n and his second wife Fausta, are met with even in his later years.\n Soon after receiving baptism he died without having ever attended\n a complete divine service. His toleration of paganism must be\n regarded purely as a piece of statecraft. He only prohibited\n impure rites and assigned to the Christians but a few of the\n temples that had actually been in use. Aversion to the paganism\n still prevalent among the principal families in Rome may partly\n have led him to transfer his residence to Byzantium, since called\n Constantinople, in A.D. 330. His three sons divided the Empire\n among them. Constantius (A.D. 337-361) retained the East, and\n became, after the death of Constantine II. in A.D. 340 and of\n Constans in A.D. 350, sole ruler. All the three sought to put\n down paganism by force. Constantius closed the heathen temples\n and forbade all sacrifices on pain of death. Multitudes of\n heathens went over to Christianity, few probably from conviction.\n Among the nobler pagans there was thus awakened a strong\n aversion to Christianity. Patriotism and manly spirit came to\n be identified with the maintenance of the old religion.[114]\n\n \u00a7 42.3. =Julian the Apostate (A.D. 361-363).=--The sons of\n Constantine the Great began their reign in A.D. 337 with the\n murder of their male relatives. The brothers Julian and Gallus,\n nephews of Constantine, alone were spared; but in A.D. 345 they\n were banished to a Cappadocian castle where Julian officiated for\n a while as reader in the village church. Having at last obtained\n leave to study in Nicomedia, then in Ephesus, and finally in\n Athens, the chief representatives of paganism fostered in him the\n conviction that he was specially raised up by the gods to restore\n again the old religion of his fathers. As early as A.D. 351\n in Nicomedia he formally though still secretly returned to\n paganism, and at Athens in A.D. 355 he took part in the Eleusinian\n mysteries. Soon thereafter Constantius, harassed by foreign wars,\n assigned to him the command of the army against the Germans. By\n affability, personal courage and high military talent, he soon\n won to himself the enthusiastic attachment of the soldiers.\n Constantius thought to weaken the evident power of his cousin\n which seemed to threaten his authority, by recalling the best\n of the legions, but the legions refused obedience and proclaimed\n Julian emperor. Then the emperor refused to ratify the election\n and treated Julian himself as a rebel. The latter advanced at\n the head of his army by forced marches upon the capital, but\n ere he reached the city, he received the tidings of the opposing\n emperor\u2019s death. Acknowledged now as emperor throughout the\n whole empire without any opposition, Julian proceeded with zeal,\n enthusiasm and vigour to accomplish his long-cherished wish, the\n restoring of the glory of the old national religion. He used no\n violent measures for the subversion and overthrow of Christianity,\n nor did he punish Christian obstinacy with death, except where it\n seemed to him the maintenance of his supremacy required it. But\n he demanded that temples which had been converted into churches\n should be restored to the heathen worship, those destroyed should\n be restored at the cost of the church exchequer and the money for\n the state that had been applied to ecclesiastical purposes had to\n be repaid. He scornfully referred the clergy thus robbed of their\n revenues to the blessedness of evangelical poverty. He also\n fomented as much as possible dissension in the church, favoured\n all sectaries and heretics, excluded Christians from all the\n higher, and afterwards from all the lower, civil and military\n offices, and loaded them on every occasion with reproach and\n shame, and by these means he actually induced many to apostatise.\n In order to discredit Christ\u2019s prophecy in Matt. xxiv. 2, he\n resolved on the restoration of the Jewish temple at Jerusalem,\n but after having been begun it was destroyed by an earthquake. He\n excluded all Christian teachers from the public schools, and also\n forbade them in their own schools from explaining the classical\n writers who were objected to and contested by them only as\n godless; so that Christian boys and youths could obtain a higher\n classical education only in the pagan schools. By petty artifices\n he endeavoured to get Christian soldiers to take part, if\n only even seemingly, in the heathen sacrifices. Indeed at a\n later period in Antioch he was not ashamed to stoop to the mean\n artifice of Galerian (\u00a7 22, 6) of sprinkling with sacrificial\n water the necessaries of life exposed in the public market, etc.\n On the other hand, he strove in every way to elevate and ennoble\n paganism. From Christianity he borrowed Benevolent Institutions,\n Church Discipline, Preaching, Public Service of Song, etc.; he\n gave many distinctions to the heathen priesthood, but required\n of them a strict discipline. He himself sacrificed and preached\n as _Pontifex Maximus_, and led a strictly ascetic, almost a\n cynically simple life. The ineffectiveness of his attempts and\n the daring, often even contemptuous, resistance of many Christian\n zealots embittered him more and more, so that there was now\n danger of bloody persecution when, after a reign of twenty\n months, he was killed from a javelin blow in a battle against the\n Persians in A.D. 363. Shortly before in answer to the scornful\n question of a heathen, \u201cWhat is your Carpenter\u2019s Son doing now?\u201d\n it had been answered, \u201cHe is making a coffin for your emperor.\u201d\n At a later period the story became current that Julian himself,\n when he received the deadly stroke, exclaimed, _Tandem vicisti\n Galil\u00e6e_! His military talents and military virtues had shed a\n glory around the throne of the C\u00e6sars such as it had not known\n since the days of Marcus Aurelius, and yet his whole life\u2019s\n struggle was and remained utterly fruitless and vain.[115]\n\n \u00a7 42.4. =The Later Emperors.=--After Julian\u2019s death, Jovian,\n and then on his death in A.D. 364, Valentinian I. (\u2020 375),\n were chosen emperors by the army. The latter resigned to his\n brother Valens the empire of the East (A.D. 364-378). His son and\n successor Gratian (A.D. 375-383) at the wish of the army adopted\n his eldest half-brother of four years old, Valentinian II., as\n colleague in the empire of the West, and upon the death of Valens\n resigned the government of the West to the Spaniard Theodosius I.,\n or the Great (A.D. 379-395), who, after the assassination of\n Valentinian II. in A.D. 392, became sole ruler. After his death\n his sons again divided the empire among them: Honorius (\u2020 423)\n took the West, Arcadius (\u2020 408) the East, and now the partitioned\n empire continued in this condition until the incursions of the\n barbarians had broken up the whole West Roman division (A.D. 476).\n Belisarius and Narses, the victorious generals of Justinian I.,\n were the first to succeed, between A.D. 533-553, in conquering\n again North Africa and all Italy along with its islands. But in\n Italy the Byzantine empire from A.D. 569 was reduced in size from\n time to time by the Longobards, and in Africa from A.D. 665 by\n the Saracens, while even earlier, about A.D. 633, the Saracens\n had secured to themselves Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.--Julian\u2019s\n immediate successors tolerated paganism for a time. It was,\n however, a very temporary respite. No sooner had =Theodosius I.=\n quieted in some measure political disorders, than he proceeded\n in A.D. 382 to accomplish the utter overthrow of paganism.\n The populace and the monks combined in destroying the temples.\n The rhetorician Libanius (\u2020 395) then addressed his celebrated\n discourse \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd to the emperor; but the remaining\n temples were closed and the people were prohibited from visiting\n them. In Alexandria, under the powerful bishop Theophilus, there\n were bloody conflicts, in consequence of which the Christians\n destroyed the beautiful Serapeion in A.D. 391. In vain did\n the pagans look for the falling down of the heavens and the\n destruction of the earth; even the Nile would not once by causing\n blight and barrenness take vengeance on the impious. In the West,\n =Gratian= was the first of the emperors who declined the rank of\n _pontifex maximus_; he also deprived the heathen priests of their\n privileges, removed the foundations of the temple of Fiscus,\n and commanded that the altar of Victory should be taken away\n from the hall of the Senate in Rome. In vain did Symmachus,\n _pr\u00e6fectus urbi_, entreat for its restoration, if not \u201c_numinis_\u201d\n yet \u201c_nominis causa_.\u201d =Valentinian II.=, urged on by Ambrose,\n sent back four times unheard the deputation that came about this\n matter. So soon as =Theodosius I.= became sole ruler the edicts\n were made more severe. On his entrance into Rome in A.D. 394 he\n addressed to the Roman Senate a severe lecture and called them\n to repentance. His sons, Honorius in the West and Arcadius in the\n East, followed the example of their father. Under the successor\n of the latter, =Theodosius II.= (A.D. 408-450), monks with\n imperial authority for the suppression of heathenism traversed\n the provinces, and in A.D. 448, in common with =Valentinian III.=\n (A.D. 425-455), the western emperor, he issued an edict\n which strictly enjoined the burning of all pagan polemical\n writings against Christianity, especially those of Porphyry \u201cthe\n crack-brained,\u201d wherever they might be found. This period is\n also marked by deeds of bloody violence. The most horrible of\n these was the murder of the noble pagan philosopher Hypatia,\n the learned daughter of Theon the mathematician, at Alexandria\n in A.D. 415. Officially paganism may be regarded as no longer\n existent. Branded long even before this as the religion of the\n peasants (such is the derivation of the word paganism), it was\n now almost wholly confined to remote rural districts. Its latest\n and solitary stronghold was the University of Athens raised to\n the summit of its fame under Proclus (\u00a7 24, 2). =Justinian I.=\n (A.D. 527-565) decreed the suppression of this school in\n A.D. 529. Its teachers fled into Persia, and there laid the\n first foundations of the later literary period of Islam under the\n ruling family of the Abassid\u00e6 at Bagdad (\u00a7 65, 2). This was the\n death hour of heathenism in the Roman empire. The Mainott\u00e6 in the\n mountains of the Peloponnesus still maintained their political\n independence and the heathen religion of their fathers down\n to the 9th century. In the Italian islands, too, of Sardinia,\n Corsica, and Sicily, there were still many heathens even in the\n time of Gregory the Great (\u2020 604).[116]\n\n \u00a7 42.5. =Heathen Polemics and Apologetics.=--=Julian\u2019s=\n controversial treatise \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u0393\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, in 3 bks. according\n to Cyril, in 7 bks. according to Jerome, is known only from the\n reply of Cyril of Alexandria (\u00a7 47, 6) which follows it section\n by section, the rest of the answers to it having been entirely\n lost. Of Cyril\u2019s book only the first ten \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 have come down to\n us in a complete state, and from these we are able almost wholly\n to restore the first book of Julian\u2019s treatise. Only fragments\n of the second decade of Cyril\u2019s work are extant, and not even\n so much of the third, so that of Julian\u2019s third book we may be\n said to know nothing.[117] Julian represented Christianity as a\n deteriorated Judaism, but Christolatry and the worship of martyrs\n as later falsifications of the doctrine of Christ.--The later\n advocates of heathenism, Libanius and Symmachus, were content\n with claiming toleration and religious freedom. But when from\n the 5th century, under the influence of the barbarians, signs of\n the speedy overthrow of the Roman empire multiplied, the heathen\n polemics assumed a bolder attitude, declaring that this was\n the punishment of heaven for the contempt of the old national\n religion, under which the empire had flourished. Such is the\n standpoint especially of the historians Eunapius and Zosimus. But\n history itself refuted them more successfully than the Christian\n apologists; for even these barbarous peoples passed over in\n due course to Christianity, and vied with the Roman emperors in\n their endeavours to extirpate heathenism. In the 5th century,\n the celebrated Neo-Platonist Proclus wrote \u201ceighteen arguments\n (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) against the Christians\u201d in vindication of the\n Platonic doctrine of the eternity of the world and in refutation\n of the Christian doctrine of creation. The Christian grammarian\n John Philoponus (\u00a7 47, 11) answered them in an exhaustive and\n elaborate treatise, which again was replied to by the philosopher\n =Simplicius=, one of the best teachers in the pagan University\n of Athens.--The dialogue =Philopatris=, \u201cthe Patriot,\u201d included\n among the works of Lucian of Samosata, but certainly not composed\n by him, is a feeble imitation of the famous scoffer, in which the\n writer declares that he can no longer fitly swear at the Olympic\n gods with their many unsavoury loves and objectionable doings,\n and with a satirical reference to Acts xvii. 23 recommends\n for this purpose \u201cthe unknown God at Athens,\u201d whom he further\n scurrilously characterizes as \u1f51\u03c8\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2, \u03c5\u1f35\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\n \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f13\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 (\u00a7 50, 1, 7).\n Finally he tells of some closely shaven men (\u00a7 45, 1) who were\n treated as liars, because, having in consequence of a ten days\u2019\n fast and singing had a vision foreboding ill to their fatherland,\n their prophecy was utterly discredited by the arrival of an\n account of the emperor\u2019s successes in the war against the\n Persians. The impudence with which the orthodox Christianity\n and the Nicene orthodox formula are sneered at, as well as the\n allusions to the spread of monasticism and a victorious war\n against the Persians, fix the date of the dialogue in the reign\n of Julian, or rather, since the writer would scarcely have had\n Julian\u2019s approval in his scoffing at the gods of Olympus, in\n the time of the Arian Valens (\u00a7 50, 4). But since the overthrow\n of Egypt and Crete is spoken of in this treatise, Niebuhr has\n put its date down to the time of the Emperor Nicephoras Phocas\n (A.D. 963-969), understanding by Persians the Saracens and by\n Scythians the Bulgarians.\n\n \u00a7 42.6. The religion of the =Hypsistarians= in Cappadocia was,\n according to Gregory Nazianzen, whose father had belonged to the\n sect, a blending of Greek paganism with bald Jewish monotheism,\n together with the oriental worship of fire and the heavenly\n bodies, with express opposition to the Christian doctrine\n of the trinity. Of a similar nature were the vagaries of the\n =Euphemites=, \u201cPraise singers,\u201d in Asia, who were also called\n _Messalians_, \u201cPetitioners,\u201d or _Euchites_, and in Africa bore\n the name of =C\u0153licol\u00e6=.\n\n\n \u00a7 43. THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.\n\n As in earlier times the supreme direction of all religious matters\nbelonged to the Roman Emperor as Pontifex Maximus, so now that\nChristianity had become the state religion he claimed for himself\nthe same position in relation to the church. Even Constantine the\nGreat regarded himself as \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f14\u03be\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and all his\nsuccessors exercised the _Jus circa sacra_ as their unquestioned right.\nOnly the Donatists (\u00a7 63, 1) denied to the state all and any right\nover the church. There was no clear consciousness of the limits of this\njurisdiction, but this at least in theory was firmly maintained, that\nin all ecclesiastical matters, in worship, discipline and doctrine, the\nemperors were not of themselves entitled to issue conclusive decisions.\nFor this purpose they called \u0152cumenical Synods, the decrees of which\nhad legal validity throughout the empire when ratified by the emperor.\nBut the more the Byzantine empire degenerated and became a centre of\nintrigues, the more hurtful did contact with the court become, and\nmore than once the most glaring heresy for a time prevailed by means\nof personal passion, unworthy tricks and open violence, until at last\northodoxy again secured the ascendency.--From the ordinances issued by\nthe recognised ecclesiastical and civil authorities upon ecclesiastical\nrights, duties and conditions, as well as from the pseudo-epigraphic\napostolic writings already being secretly introduced in this department,\nthere sprang up during this period a rich and varied literature on canon\nlaw.\n\n \u00a7 43.1. The =Jus circa sacra= gave to the =Emperors= the right of\n legally determining all the relations between church and state,\n but assigned to them also the duty of caring for the preservation\n or restoration of peace and of unity in the church, guarding\n orthodoxy with a strong arm, looking after the interests of\n the church and the clergy, and maintaining the authority of\n ecclesiastical law. Even Constantine the Great excluded all\n heretics from the privileges which he accorded to the church,\n and regarded it as a duty forcibly to prevent their spread.\n The destruction or closing of their churches, prohibition of\n public meetings, banishment of their leaders, afterwards seizure\n of their possessions, were the punishments which the state\n invariably used for their destruction. The first death sentence\n on a heretic was issued and executed so early as A.D. 385 by\n the usurper Maximus (\u00a7 54, 2), but this example was not imitated\n during this period. Constans II. in A.D. 654 gave the first\n example of scourging to the effusion of blood and barbarous\n mutilation upon a persistent opponent of his union system of\n doctrine (\u00a7 52, 8). The fathers of the 4th century were decidedly\n opposed to all compulsion in matters of faith (comp. however\n \u00a7 63, 1). The right of determining by imperial edict what was\n to be believed and taught in the empire was first asserted by\n the usurper Basilicus in A.D. 476 (\u00a7 52, 5). The later emperors\n followed this example; most decidedly Justinian I. (\u00a7 52, 6)\n and the court theologians justified such assumptions from\n the emperor\u2019s sacerdotal rank, which was the antitype of that\n of Melchizedec [Melchisedec]. The emperor exercised a direct\n influence upon the choice of bishops especially in the capital\n cities; at a later period the emperor quite arbitrarily appointed\n these and set them aside. The church\u2019s power to afford protection\n secured for it generally a multitude of outward privileges and\n advantages. The state undertook the support of the church partly\n by rich gifts and endowments from state funds, partly by the\n making over of temples and their revenues to the church, and\n Constantine conferred upon the church the right of receiving\n bequests of all kinds. The churches and their officers were\n expressly exempted from all public burdens. The distinct\n judicial authority of the bishops recognised of old was\n formally legitimized by Constantine under the name of _Audentia\n episcopalis_. The clergy themselves were exempted from the\n jurisdiction of civil tribunals and were made subject to an\n ecclesiastical court. The right of asylum was taken from the\n heathen temples and conferred upon the Christian churches. With\n this was connected also the right of episcopal intercession or\n of interference with regard to decisions already come to by the\n civil courts which were thus in some measure subject to clerical\n control.\n\n \u00a7 43.2. =The Institution of \u0152cumenical Synods.=--The \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af, _Concilia universalia s. generalia_, owe their\n origin to Constantine the Great (\u00a7 50, 1). The calling of\n councils was an unquestioned right of the crown. A prelate\n chosen by the emperor or the council presided; the presence\n of the imperial commissioner, who opened the Synod by reading\n the imperial edict, was a guarantee for the preservation of\n the rights of the state. The treasury bore the expense of\n board and travelling. The decisions generally were called \u1f45\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9,\n _Definitiones_; if they were resolutions regarding matters of\n faith, \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; if in the form of a confession, \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1; if they\n bore upon the constitution, worship and discipline, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. On\n doctrinal questions there had to be unanimity; on constitutional\n questions a majority sufficed. Only the bishops had the right\n of voting, but they allowed themselves to be influenced by the\n views of the subordinate clergy. As a sort of substitute for\n the \u0153cumenical councils which could not be suddenly or easily\n convened we have the \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 at Constantinople, which\n were composed of all the bishops who might at the time be present\n in the district. At Alexandria, too, these _endemic_ Synods\n were held. The _Provincial Synods_ were convened twice a year\n under the presidency of the metropolitan; as courts of higher\n instances we have the _Patriarchal_ or _Diocesan Synods_ (comp.\n \u00a7 46, 1).[118]\n\n \u00a7 43.3. =Canonical Ordinances.=--As canonical decrees\n acknowledged throughout the whole of the Catholic national\n church or at least throughout the more important ecclesiastical\n districts the following may be named.\n\n 1. The Canons of the \u0152cumenical Councils.\n\n 2. The Decrees of several important Particular Synods.\n\n 3. The _Epistol\u00e6 canonic\u00e6_ of distinguished bishops, especially\n those of the _Sedes apostolic\u00e6_, \u00a7 34, preeminently of Rome\n and Alexandria, pertaining to questions which have had a\n determining influence on church practice, which were at a\n later time called at Rome _Epistt. decretales_.\n\n 4. The canonical laws of the emperors, \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 (Codex\n Theodosianus in A.D. 440, Codex Justinian\u00e6us in A.D. 534,\n Novell\u00e6 Justiniani).\n\n The first systematically arranged collection of the Greek church\n known to us was made by Johannes Scholasticus, then presbyter\n at Antioch, afterwards Patriarch at Constantinople (\u2020 578). A\n second collection, also ascribed to him, to which were added\n the canonical \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 of Justinian, received the name of the\n _Nomocanon_. In the West all earlier collections were put out\n of sight by the _Codex canonum_ of the Roman abbot Dionysius the\n Little (\u00a7 47, 23), to which were also added the extant _Decretal\n Epistles_ about A.D. 520.\n\n \u00a7 43.4. =Pseudepigraphic Church Ordinances.=--Even so early\n as the 2nd and 3rd centuries there sprang up no inconsiderable\n number of writings upon church law, with directions about ethical,\n liturgical and constitutional matters for the instruction of the\n church members as well as the clergy, the moral precepts of which\n are of importance in church procedure as affording a standard\n for discipline. The oldest probably of these has lately been\n made again accessible to us in the Teaching of the XII. Apostles,\n the Didache (\u00a7 30, 7). It designates its contents, even where\n these are taken not from the Old Testament or the \u201cGospel,\u201d but\n from the so-called church practice, as apostolic, with the honest\n conviction that by means of oral apostolic tradition it may be\n traced back to the immediate appointment of the Lord, without,\n however, pseudepigraphically claiming to have been written by\n the Apostles. Many treatises of the immediately following period,\n no longer known to us or known only by fragments, occupied the\n same standpoint. But even so early as the end of the 3rd century\n pseudepigraphic apostolic fiction makes its appearance in\n the so-called _Apostolic Didascalia_, and some sixty years\n later, it reached its climax in the eight bks. of the so-called\n =Constitutiones Apostolic\u00e6=, \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0. \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u039a\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The\n first six bks. correspond to the previously named _Didascalia_\n expanded and variously altered.[119] It assumes the form of a\n prolix epistolary discourse of the Apostle, communicated through\n Clement of Rome, about everything pertaining to the Christian\n life, the Catholic system of doctrine, liturgical practice and\n hierarchical constitution which may be necessary and useful for\n the laity as well as the clergy to know, with the exclusion,\n however, of everything which belonged to the department of what\n was then regarded as the _Disciplina arcani_ (\u00a7 36, 4). Of older\n writings, so far as known, those principally used are the seven\n Ignatian Epistles (\u00a7 30, 5). It is post-Novatianist (\u00a7 41, 3)\n and belongs to a time pre-Constantine but free from persecution\n (\u00a7 22, 6), and may therefore be placed somewhere between A.D. 260\n and A.D. 302. It was written probably in Syria.--While the first\n six bks. of the Apostolic Constitutions may be compared to the\n Syrian recension as a contemporary rendition of the Didascalia,\n the =seventh book= from an examination of the Didache seems\n a rendition of that little work, in which the assumption of\n apostolic authorship is made, and from which everything offensive\n to the forger and his age is cut out, the old text being\n otherwise literally reproduced, while into it is cleverly\n smuggled from his own resources whatever would contribute to\n the support of his own peculiar views as well as the prevailing\n practice of the church. The Eusebian symbol, which is given in\n the 41st chap., is an anti-Nicene, anti-Marcellianist, Arianizing\n formula, fixing the date of the forgery at the period of the\n Arian controversy, somewhere between A.D. 340 and A.D. 350\n (\u00a7 50, 2).--The =eighth book= is in great part an unmistakeable\n forgery compiled from older sources belonging to the 3rd century,\n some of which are still to be found, and forms a handbook for\n the discharge of clerical, especially episcopal, duties in\n the conducting of worship and other clerical functions, _e.g._\n ordination, baptism, etc., together with the relative liturgical\n formularies, drawn up in a thoroughly legal-like style, in\n which the Apostles one by one give their contribution with the\n formula \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. The composition is probably ante-Nicene,\n but the date of its incorporation with the other seven books\n is uncertain.--In most, though not in all, MSS. the =Canones\n Apostolorum=, sometimes 50, sometimes 85, in number, are appended\n to the eighth book as its last chapter. Their standpoint is that\n common to the canons of the early councils from which they are\n chiefly borrowed. In respect of contents they treat mainly of\n the moral behaviour and official functions of the clergy. The\n 85th contains a Scripture canon of the Old and New Testaments,\n including the two Epp. of the Roman Clement (\u00a7 30, 3), as well\n as the Apost. Constitutions, but omitting the Apocalypse of John\n (comp. \u00a7 33, 9). The collection of the apostolic canon cannot\n have been made before the beginning of the 5th century, and most\n likely in Syria. Dionysius the Little admitted only the first 50\n as _Canones qui dicuntur Apostolorum_, but Johannes Scholasticus\n quite unhesitatingly ascribes all the 85 to Clement of Rome. The\n Second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 (\u00a7 63, 2) acknowledged the\n genuineness of the 85, but rejected the Apostolic Constitutions\n as a heretical forgery which had found no general acceptance in\n the West.--While hitherto it has been surmised that the 7th bk.\n of the Apost. Constit., as an independent and original work,\n should be assigned to another and a much later author than the\n first six bks., Harnack, founding upon his study of the Didache,\n has come to a clear understanding of their mutual relations. He\n shows that the original documents lying at the basis respectively\n of the Didache and the Didascalia are fundamentally distinct in\n respect of composition and character, but the two in the form in\n which they lie before us in the Apost. Constit. are undoubtedly\n the work of one and the same interpolator. We further obtain\n the equally convincing and surprising result that the author of\n this forgery is also identical with the author of the =thirteen\n Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles= (\u00a7 30, 5), and had in the one case and\n in the other the same object in view. Finally, he characterizes\n him as a Syrian cleric well versed in Scripture, especially\n the Old Testament, but also a shrewd worldly politician,\n opposed to all strict asceticism, who sought by his forgeries\n to win apostolic sanction and justification not only for the\n constitutional and liturgical institutions of the church, as well\n as the milder practice of his age, but also for his own semi-Arian\n doctrinal views.\n\n \u00a7 43.5. =The Apostolic Church Ordinances=[120] are, according\n to Harnack\u2019s careful analysis, a compilation executed in a most\n scholarly fashion of extracts from four old writings: the Didache,\n the Ep. of Barnabas, from which the moral precepts are taken,\n a \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 from the beginning of the 3rd century,\n and a \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 from the end of the 2nd century,\n with many clumsy alterations and excursuses after the style of\n the church tradition of its own period, the beginning of the\n 4th century. Its introduction consists of a formula of greeting\n modelled upon the Ep. of Barnabas from the twelve Apostles who\n are designated by name. The list, which begins with the name of\n John, wants one of the two Jameses and the late chosen Matthias,\n and the number of twelve is made up by the addition of the name\n of Nathanael and that of Cephas in addition to that of Peter.\n Then the Apostles tell that Christ had commanded them to divide\n among them by lot the Eparchies, Episcopates, Presbyterates,\n Diaconates, etc., of all lands, and to send forth \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 into\n the whole \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7; then follow these \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, first the moral\n rules, then the constitutional enactments, both being divided\n among the several Apostles (\u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd, \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd,\n etc.). The compilation had its origin in Egypt, not, however,\n at Alexandria, where Athanasius was still unacquainted with it,\n or at least did not think it worthy of being mentioned among the\n church manuals (\u00a7 59, 1), while at a later period it was held in\n the highest esteem by the Copts, Ethiopians, Arabians, etc., and\n took the first rank among their books on ecclesiastical procedure.\n\n\n\n\n II. MONASTICISM, CLERICALISM AND HIERARCHISM.\n\n\n \u00a7 44. MONASTICISM.[121]\n\n Disgusted with worldly pursuits and following an impulse of the\noriental character in favour of the contemplative life, many ascetics\nwithdrew into deserts and solitudes, there as Anchorets (\u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03af, \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2), amid prayer and labour, privation and self-denial,\nwringing out of the wilderness their scanty support, they strove after\nholiness of life which they thought they could reach only by forsaking\nthe accursed world. The place where this extravagant extreme of the\nold ascetism arose was the Thebaid in Upper Egypt (\u00a7 39, 3). The first,\nand for a long time isolated, examples of such professional abandonment\nof the world may be traced back to the 3rd century; but they had wider\nspread first in the post-Constantine Age. The example of St. Anthony was\nspecially influential in leading a number of like-minded men to betake\nthemselves to isolated dwellings, \u03bb\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, in his neighbourhood and to\nplace themselves under his spiritual direction. In this we have already\nthe transition from a solitary anchoret life to a communal c\u0153nobite\nlife (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c2), and this reached maturity when Anthony\u2019s disciple\nPachomius gathered the scattered residents in his district into one\ncommon dwelling, _Claustrum_, _C\u0153nobium_, _Monasterium_, _Mandra_=fold,\nand bound them under a common system of ascetic practice in prayer and\nlabour, especially basket making and carpet weaving. This arrangement,\nwithout, however, any tendency to displace the anchoret life properly\nso-called, won great favour, and this went on for some decades until\nfirst of all in the East, then also in the West about A.D. 370, the land\nwas covered over with monasteries. The monastic life under its twofold\naspect was now esteemed as \u03b2\u1f76\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 (Matt. xxii. 30), \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\n\u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03ae, _melior vita_. Yet even here corruption soon spread. Not merely\nthe feeling of spiritual need, but ambition, vanity, slothfulness\nand especially the desire to avoid military service and villainage,\ntaxes and imposts, induced men to enter the monasteries. The Emperor\nValens therefore issued an order in A.D. 365 that such men should be\ndragged out by force from their retreats. Spiritual vices too were not\nwanting--extravagance and fanaticism, spiritual pride, etc. All the\nmore did the most distinguished bishops, _e.g._ Basil the Great, feel\nit their duty to take the monasteries under their special supervision\nand care. Under such direction, besides serving their own special\npurpose, they became extremely important and beneficial as places of\nrefuge for the oppressed and persecuted, and as benevolent institutions\nfor the sick and the poor. Sometimes also by the introduction of\ntheological studies as seminaries to prepare candidates for the higher\necclesiastical offices. Other prelates, however, preferred to use their\nmonks as a trusty horde for the accomplishment of their own ambitious\nparty ends. The monks were always reckoned among laymen, but were\ndistinguished from the _Seculares_ as _Religiosi_ or _Conversi_.\n\n \u00a7 44.1. =The Biography of St. Anthony.=--According to the _Vita\n s. Antonii_ ascribed to Athanasius, Anthony was sprung from a\n wealthy Coptic family of the country town of Coma in Upper Egypt,\n and was born in A.D. 251. At the age of eighteen he lost his\n parents, and, being powerfully affected by hearing the story of\n the rich young ruler in the gospel read in church, he gave away\n all his goods to the poor and withdrew into the desert (A.D. 285).\n Amid terrible inward struggles, which took the form of daily\n conflicts with demons, who sprang upon him from the sides of his\n cave in the shape of all sort of beasts and strange creatures,\n he spent a long time in a horrible tomb, then twenty years in the\n crumbling ruins of a castle, and finally he chose as his constant\n abode a barren mountain, afterwards called Anthony\u2019s Mount,\n where a well and some date palms afforded him the absolutely\n indispensable support. His clothing, a sheep\u2019s skin and a hairy\n cloak, was on his body day and night, nor did he ever wash\n himself. The fame of his holiness attracted a multitude of\n like-minded ascetics who settled in his neighbourhood and\n put themselves under his spiritual direction. But also men of\n the world of all ranks made pilgrimages to him, seeking and\n finding comfort. Even Constantine and his sons testified in\n correspondence with him their veneration, and he answered \u201clike\n a Christian Diogenes to the Christian Alexander.\u201d Pointing to\n Christ as the only miracle worker, he healed by his prayers\n bodily maladies and by his conversations afflictions of the soul.\n Amid the distress of the persecution of Maximian in A.D. 311 he\n went to Alexandria, but found not the martyrdom which he courted.\n Again, in A.D. 351, during the bitter Arian controversy (\u00a7 50),\n he appeared suddenly in the great capital, this time gazed at\n by Christians and pagans as a divine wonder, and converting\n crowds of the heathen. In his last days he resigned the further\n direction of the society of hermits gathered about him to his\n disciple Pachomius, himself withdrawing along with two companions\n into an unknown solitude, where he, bequeathing to the author his\n sheepskin, died in A.D. 356, in his 105th year, after exacting a\n promise that no one should know the place of his burial.--Until\n the appearance of this book, which was very soon translated into\n Latin by a certain Evagrius, no single writer, neither Lactantius,\n nor Eusebius, nor even Athanasius in any of his other undoubtedly\n genuine writings, mentions the name of this patriarchal monk\n afterwards so highly esteemed, and all later writers draw only\n from this one source. Weingarten has now not only proved that\n this _Vita s. Ant._ is not a biography in the proper sense, but\n a romance with a purpose which was intended \u201cto represent the\n ideal of a monkish life dovetailed into the ecclesiastical system\n and raised notwithstanding all popular and vital elements into\n a spiritual atmosphere,\u201d but has also disproved the Athanasian\n authorship of the book, without, however, seeking to deny the\n historical existence of St. Anthony and his importance in the\n establishment of monasticism, as this is already vouched for\n by the fact that even in the 4th century in the days of Rufinus\n pilgrimages were made to _Mons Antonii_.--The most important\n witness for the Athanasian authorship is Gregory Nazianzen, who\n begins his panegyric on Athanasius delivered in Constantinople\n only a few years after that father\u2019s death, which occurred in\n A.D. 373, with the wish that he could describe brilliantly the\n life of the highly revered man, as he himself had portrayed the\n ideal of monasticism in the person of St. Anthony. But, on the\n other hand, Jerome in his _Vita Pauli_ and Rufinus in his _Hist.\n eremit._ seem not yet to have known the author of the book,\n and the former, first in his _De scriptoribus ecclst._, written\n twenty years later, knows that Athanasius was the author. Internal\n reasons, too, seem with no small weight to tell against the\n authenticity of the book, the biographical contents of which are\n largely intermixed with fabulous and legendary elements.\n\n \u00a7 44.2. =The Origin of Christian Monasticism.=--From the fact\n that not only Lactantius, but also Eusebius, whose history\n reaches down to A.D. 324, have nothing to say of a monasticism\n already developed or then first in process of development, it\n may perhaps be concluded that although in a general way such\n an institution was already in existence, it had not yet become\n known beyond the bounds of the Thebaid where it originated.\n But from the fact that Eusebius, who died in A.D. 340, in his\n _Vita Constantini_ reaching down to A.D. 337, never makes any\n mention of monasticism, we cannot with like probability infer\n a continuance of such ignorance down to the above-mentioned\n year, but must attribute it to the limited range of the book\n in question. In his commentary on Ps. lxviii. 7 and lxxxiv. 4\n he distinctly speaks of a Christian monasticism. The fugitive\n Athanasius, too, so early as A.D. 356 betakes himself to the\n monks of the Thebaid, and stays for a year with them (\u00a7 50, 2, 4),\n which presupposes a certain measure of organization and celebrity\n on the part of the community of that region. In his _Hist.\n Arianorum ad monachos_, written about A.D. 360, he declares that\n already monasticism had spread through all the \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 or districts\n of Egypt. Of a monasticism outside of Egypt, however, even this\n writing still knows nothing. We shall not, therefore, greatly\n err if we assume that the latter years of Constantine\u2019s reign\n are to be taken as the period of the essential origin of Egyptian\n monasticism; though from this it is not to be concluded that\n the first isolated beginnings of it, which had not yet won\n any special recognition, are not to be assigned to a very much\n earlier period. Even the Old and New Testaments, in the persons\n of Elijah, John the Baptist, and our Lord Himself, tell of\n temporary withdrawals, from religious and ascetical motives, into\n the wilderness. But even the life-long professional anchoretism\n and c\u0153nobitism had their precursors in the Indian _gymnosophists_,\n in the East-Asiatic Buddhism and the Egyptian Serapis worship,\n and to a certain extent also in the Essenism of Palestine\n (\u00a7 8, 4). From the place of its origin and the character of\n its development, however, Christian monasticism can have been\n influenced only by the Egyptian Serapis worship, and that in\n a very general sort of way. That this actually was the case,\n Weingarten especially has sought to prove from various analogies\n based upon the learned researches of French Academicians.\n\n \u00a7 44.3. =Oriental Monasticism.=--For centuries Egypt continued\n the central seat and training school of Christian monasticism\n both for the East and for the West. The most celebrated of all\n the Egyptian hermit colonies was that founded by Pachomius,\n formerly perhaps a monk of Serapis, (\u2020 348), at Tabenn\u00e6, an\n island of the Nile. To the mother monastery were soon attached\n numerous daughter monasteries. Each of these institutions was\n under the direction of a president called the abbot, _Abbas_,\n _i.e._ \u201cfather,\u201d or Archimandrite; while all of them together\n were under the superior of the parent monastery. Similar unions\n were established by Ammonius among the Nitrian mountains, and by\n Macarius the Elder (\u00a7 47, 7) in the Scetic desert. Hilarion, a\n disciple of St. Anthony (\u2020 371), is celebrated by Jerome as the\n founder of Palestinian monasticism. The _Vita Hilarionis_ of\n the latter, richly adorned with records of adventurous travels\n and wonderful events, most extravagant wonders and demoniacal\n apparitions, like the life of Paul of Thebes (\u00a7 39, 4), has\n been recently shown to be a romance built upon certain genuine\n reminiscences. Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen with\n youthful enthusiasm sought to introduce monasticism into their\n native Asia Minor, while Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste (\u2020 380),\n carried it still further east. But though among the Syrian\n discourses of Aphraates (\u00a7 47, 13) there is found one on\n monasticism, which thus would seem to have been introduced into\n Mesopotamia by A.D. 340, this is in contradiction to all other\n witnesses and awakens a suspicion of the ungenuineness of the\n discourse, which is further confirmed by its being wanting\n in the Armenian translation, as well as in the enumeration\n of Gennadius.--The zeal especially of Basil was successful in\n ennobling monasticism and making it fruitful. The monastic rules\n drawn up by him superseded all others in the East, and are to\n this day alone recognised in the orthodox Greek Church. According\n to these every monastery had one or more clerics for conducting\n worship and administering the sacrament. Basil also advanced\n the development and influence of monasticism by setting down\n the monasteries in the neighbourhood of the cities. In the\n 5th century two of the noblest, most sensible and talented\n representatives of ancient monasticism did much for its elevation\n and ennobling; namely, Isidore, who died about A.D. 450,\n abbot and priest of a cloister at Pelusium in Egypt, and his\n contemporary Nilus, who lived among the monks of Sinai. The not\n inconsiderable remnants of their numerous letters still extant\n testify to their far-reaching influence, as well as to the noble\n and liberal spirit which they manifested (\u00a7 47, 6, 10).[122] A\n peculiar kind of c\u0153nobite life is found amongst the =Acoimet\u00e6=,\n for whom the Roman Studius founded about A.D. 46O the afterwards\n very celebrated monastery _Studion_ at Constantinople, in which\n as many as a thousand monks are said to have lived together\n at one time. They took their name from the divine service\n uninterruptedly continued in their cloister night and day. From\n the 5th century the legislative Synods undertook the care of the\n monasteries. The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 put them under\n the jurisdiction of the bishop. Returning to the world was at\n first freely permitted, but was always regarded as discreditable\n and demanding submission to penance. From the 6th century,\n however, monastic vows were regarded as of life-long obligation,\n and therefore a regular canonical age was fixed and a long\n novitiate prescribed as a time of testing and consideration.\n About this time, too, besides the _propria professio_, the\n _paterna devotio_ was also regarded as binding in accordance\n with the example of 1 Sam. i. 11.\n\n \u00a7 44.4. =Western Monasticism.=--The West did not at first take\n kindly to the monastic idea, and only the combined exhortations\n of the most respected bishops and teachers of the Church, with\n Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine at their head, secured for it\n acceptance there. The idea that already the universally revered\n Athanasius who from A.D. 341 resided a long time in Rome (\u00a7 50, 2),\n had brought hither the knowledge of Egyptian monasticism and\n first awakened on behalf of it the sympathies of the Westerns,\n is devoid of any sure foundation. Owing, however, to the free\n intercourse which even on the side of the Church existed between\n East and West, it is on the other hand scarcely conceivable that\n the first knowledge of Eastern monasticism should have reached\n Italy through Jerome on his return in A.D. 373 from his Eastern\n travels. But it is certain that Jerome from that time most\n zealously endeavoured to obtain recruits for it in the West,\n applying himself specially to conspicuous pious ladies of Rome\n and earning for this scant thanks from their families. The\n people\u2019s aversion, too, against monasticism was so great that\n even in A.D. 384, when a young female ascetic called Blasilla,\n the daughter of St. Paula, died in Rome as some supposed from\n excessive fasting, an uproar was raised in which the indignant\n populace, as Jerome himself relates, cried out, _Quousque genus\n detestabile monachorum non urbe pellitur? Non lapidibus obruitur?\n non pr\u00e6cipitatur in fluctus?_ But twenty years later Jerome could\n say with exultation, _Crebra virginum monasteria, monachorum,\n innumerabilis multitudo, ut ... quod prius ignomini\u00e6 fuerat,\n esset postea glori\u00e6_. Popular opposition to the monks was longest\n and most virulently shown in North Africa. Even so late as\n about A.D. 450, Salvianus reports the expressions of such hate:\n _Ridebant, ... maledicebant ... insectabantur ... detestabantur\n ... omnia in monacho p\u0153ne fecerunt qu\u00e6 in Salvatorem nostrum\n Jud\u00e6orum impietas_, etc. Nevertheless monasticism continued\n to spread and therewith also the institution grew in popular\n esteem in the West. Martin of Tours (\u00a7 47, 14) established it\n in Northern Gaul in A.D. 370; and in Southern Gaul, Honoratus\n [Honorius] about A.D. 400 founded the celebrated monastery of\n Serinum, on the uninhabited island of Lerina, and John Cassianus\n (\u00a7 47, 21), the still more celebrated one at Massilia, now\n Marseilles. The inroads of the invaders well nigh extinguished\n Western monachism. It was Benedict of Nursia who first, in\n A.D. 529, gave to it unity, order, and a settled constitution,\n and made it for many centuries the pioneer of agricultural\n improvement and literary culture throughout the Western empire\n that had been hurled into confusion by the wars of the barbarians\n (\u00a7 85).\n\n \u00a7 44.5. =Institution of Nunneries.=--Virgins devoted to God, who\n repudiated marriage, are spoken of as early as the 2nd century.\n The limitations of their sex forbade them entering on the life\n of anchorets, but all the more heartily did they adopt the idea\n of the cloister life. St. Anthony himself is said to have laid\n its first foundations when he was hastening away into solitude,\n by establishing at Coma for the sake of his sister whom he\n was leaving behind, an association of virgins consecrated unto\n God. Pachomius founded the first female cloister with definite\n rules, the superior of which was his own sister. From that time\n there sprang up a host of women\u2019s c\u0153nobite unions. The lady\n superior was called _Ammas_, \u201cmother;\u201d the members, \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af,\n _sanctimoniales_, _nonn\u00e6_, which was a Coptic word meaning chaste.\n The patroness of female monachism in the West was St. Paula\n of Rome, who was the scholar and friend of Jerome. Accompanied\n by her daughter Eustochium, she followed him to Palestine, and\n founded three nunneries at Bethlehem.\n\n \u00a7 44.6. =Monastic Asceticism.=--Although the founders of the\n Eastern monastic rules subjected themselves to the strictest\n asceticism and performed them to a remarkable extent, especially\n in fasting and enduring privations, yet the degree of asceticism\n which they enjoined upon their monks in fasting, watching, prayer\n and labour, was in general moderate and sensible. Valorous acts\n of self mortification, so very congenial to the oriental spirit,\n are thus met with in the proper monastic life seldomer than among\n ascetics living after their own fancy in deserts and solitudes.\n This accounts for the rare appearance of the =Stylites= or pillar\n saints, by whom expression was given in an outward way to the\n idea of elevation above the earthly and of struggle toward heaven.\n The most celebrated of these was _Simeon Stylites_, who lived in\n the neighbourhood of Antioch for thirty years on a pillar seventy\n feet high, and preached repentance to the people who flocked to\n him from every side. Thousands of Saracens who roamed through\n those regions sought baptism, overcome, according to the legend,\n by the power of his discourse. He died A.D. 459. After him the\n most celebrated pillar saints were one _Daniel_ who died at\n Constantinople in A.D. 489, and a younger _Simeon_ who died at\n Antioch in A.D. 596.\n\n \u00a7 44.7. =Anti-Ecclesiastical and Heretical Monasticism.=--Even\n after the regulating of monachism by Pachomius and Basil, there\n were still isolated hermit societies which would be bound by no\n rules. Such were the =Sarabaites= in Egypt and the =Remoboth=\n in Syria. Crowds of monks, too, under no rule swarmed about,\n called \u0392\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, _Pabulatores_ or Grazers, because they supported\n themselves only on herbs and roots. In Italy and Africa from\n the 5th century we hear of so-called =Gyrovagi=, who under the\n pretence of monachism led a useless vagabond life. Monasticism\n assumed a decidedly heretical and schismatical character among\n the Euchites and Eustathianists in the second half of the 4th\n century. The =Euchites=, called also from their mystic dances\n _Messalians or Chorentes_, not to be confounded with the pagan\n Euchites (\u00a7 42, 6), thought that they had reached the ideal of\n perfection, and were therefore raised above observance of the law.\n Under pretext of engaging in constant prayer and being favoured\n with divine visions, they went about begging, because work was\n not seemly for perfect saints. Every man they taught, by reason\n of his descent from Adam, brings with him into the world an\n evil demon who can be overcome only by prayer, and thus evil\n can be torn out by the roots. Then man is in need neither of the\n law, nor of holy scripture, nor of the sacraments, and may be\n unconditionally left to himself, and may even do that which to\n a legal man would be sinful. The mystic union of God and man they\n represented by lascivious acts of sensual love. They understood\n the gospel history only as an allegory and considered fire the\n creative light of the universe. By craft and espionage Bishop\n Flavian of Antioch, in A.D. 381, came to know their secret\n principles and proceedings. But notwithstanding the persecution\n now directed against them, they continued in existence till the\n 6th century. The =Eustathianists= took their name from Eustathius,\n Bishop of Sebaste, the founder of monasticism in the eastern\n provinces of the empire. Their fanatical contempt of marriage\n went so far that they regarded fellowship with the married impure\n and held divine service by themselves alone. They repudiated the\n Church fasts and instead ordained fasts on Sundays and festival\n days, and wholly abstained from eating flesh. The women dressed\n in men\u2019s clothes. From the rich they demanded the surrender of\n all their goods. Servants forsook their masters, wives their\n husbands, in order to attach themselves to the associations\n of these saints. But the resolute interference of the Synod of\n Gangra in Paphlagonia, between A.D. 360 and A.D. 370, checked\n their further spread.--More closely related to the old ascetic\n order than to the newly organized monasticism was a sect which,\n according to Augustine, had gained special acceptance among the\n country people round about Hippo. In accordance with the example\n of Abel, who in the Old Testament history is without children,\n its members, the so-called =Abelites=, indeed married, but\n restrained themselves from marital intercourse, in order that\n they might not by begetting children contribute to the spread of\n original sin, and maintained their existence by the adoption of\n strange children, one boy and one girl being received into each\n family.\n\n\n \u00a7 45. THE CLERGY.\n\n The distinction between clergy and laity was ever becoming more\nand more clearly marked and in the higher church offices there grew\nup a spiritual aristocracy alongside of the secular aristocracy. The\npriesthood arrogated a position high above the laity just as the soul\nis higher than the body. There was consequently such a thronging into\nthe clerical ranks that a restriction had to be put upon it by the\ncivil laws. The choice of the clergy was made by the bishops with the\nformal consent of the members of the church. In the East the election\nof bishops lay ordinarily with the episcopal board of the province\nconcerned though under the presidency of the metropolitan, whose duty\nit was to ordain the individual so elected. The episcopal chair of the\nimperial capital, however, was generally under the patronage of the\ncourt. In the West on the other hand the old practice was continued,\naccording to which bishops, clergy and members of the church together\nmade the election. At Rome, however, the emperor maintained the right\nof confirming the appointment of the new bishop. The exchange of one\nbishopric for another was forbidden by the Nicene Council as spiritual\nadultery (Eph. v. 33 ff.), but was nevertheless frequently practised.\nThe monarchical rank of the bishop among the clergy was undisputed. The\n_Chorepiscopi_ (\u00a7 34, 3) had their episcopal privileges and authority\nalways more and more restricted, were made subordinate to the city\nbishops, and finally, about A.D. 360, were quite set aside. To the\nPresbyters, on the other hand, in consequence of the success of the\nanti-episcopal reaction, especially among the daughter and country\nchurches, complete independence was granted in regard to the ministry\nof the word and dispensation of sacraments, with the exception of the\nordination of the clergy, and in the West also the confirmation of the\nbaptism, which the bishop alone was allowed to perform.\n\n \u00a7 45.1. =Training of the Clergy.=--The few theological seminaries\n of Alexandria, C\u00e6sarea, Antioch, Edessa and Nisibis could not\n satisfy the need of clerical training, and even these for the\n most part disappeared amid the political and ecclesiastical\n upheavals of the 5th and 6th centuries. The West was entirely\n without such institutions. So long as pagan schools of learning\n flourished at Athens, Alexandria, Nicomedia, etc., many Christian\n youths sought their scientific preparation for the service of\n the church in them, and added to this on the Christian side by\n asceticism and theological study among the anchorets or monks.\n Others despised classical culture and were satisfied with what\n the monasteries could give. Others again began their clerical\n career even in boyhood as readers or episcopal secretaries,\n and grew up under the oversight and direction of the bishop or\n experienced clergymen. Augustine organized his clergy into a\n monastic association, _Monasterium Clericorum_, and gave it the\n character of a clerical seminary. This useful institution found\n much favour and was introduced into Sicily and Sardinia by the\n bishops driven out by the Vandals. The _Regula Augustini_, so\n often referred to the Latin Middle Ages, is of later and\n uncertain origin, but is based upon two discourses of Augustine,\n \u201c_De Moribus Clericorum_\u201d and an Epistle to the Nuns at\n Hippo.--The age of thirty was fixed upon as the canonical age\n for entering the order of presbyter or priest; twenty-five for\n that of deacon. Neophytes, those who had been baptized on a\n sickbed (_Clinici_), penitents and energoumeni, _Bigenie_, the\n mutilated, eunuchs, slaves, actors, comedians, dancers, soldiers,\n etc., were excluded from the clerical office. The African church\n even in the 4th century prescribed a strict examination of\n candidates as to their attainments and orthodoxy. Justinian\n at least insisted upon a guarantee of orthodoxy by means of\n episcopal examination.--=Ordination=[123] made its appearance\n as an appendage to the baptismal anointing as a sacramental\n ordinance. The one was consecration to the priesthood in the\n special sense: the other in the general sense; both bore a\n _character indelibilis_. Their efficacy was generally regarded\n as of a magical kind. The imparting of ordination was exclusively\n an episcopal privilege; but presbyters could assist at the\n consecration of those of their own order. The proposition:\n _Ne quis vage ordinatur_, was of universal application; the\n missionary office was the only exception. The anniversaries of\n episcopal ordinations, _Natales episcoporum_, were frequently\n observed as festivals. Legally no one could be ordained to a\n higher ecclesiastical office, who had not passed through all the\n lower offices from that of subdeacon. In earlier times ordination\n consisted only in imposition of hands; but subsequently, after\n the pattern of baptism there was added an anointing with _Chrism_,\n _i.e._ oil with balsam. The Lord\u2019s Supper was partaken of\n before ordination, the candidate having previously observed a\n fast.--From the 5th century it was made imperative that the party\n ordained should adopt the =Tonsure=.[124] It had been introduced\n first in connection with the penitents, then as a symbol of\n humility it found favour among the monks, and from these it\n passed over to the clergy. Originally the whole head was shaved\n bare. At a later period the Greek tonsure, _Tonsura Pauli_, which\n merely shaved the forehead, was distinguished from the Romish,\n _Tonsura Petri_, which left a circle of hair round about the\n crown of the head, as a memorial of Christ\u2019s crown of thorns or\n as the symbol of the royal priesthood, _Corona sacerdotalis_.\n The shaving of the beard, as an effeminate foppish custom, seemed\n to the ancient church to detract from the sternness and dignity\n of the clerical rank. In all Eastern churches the full beard was\n retained, and the wearing of it by-and-by made obligatory, as it\n is to this day. In the West, however, perhaps to mark a contrast\n to the bearded clergy of the Arian Germans, shaving became\n general among the Catholic clergy, and by papal and synodal\n ordinances became almost universally prevalent. The adoption\n of the custom was also perhaps furthered by a desire to\n give symbolic expression by the removal of the beard to the\n renunciation of the claims of the male sex on the part of a\n celibate clergy.--A solemn =Investiture= with the insignia of\n office (\u00a7 59, 7) was gradually introduced, and was that which\n marked distinctions between the consecrations to the various\n ranks of clerical offices.\n\n \u00a7 45.2. =The Injunction of Celibacy.=--In accordance with a hint\n given by the Spanish Provincial Synod of Elvira in A.D. 306 in\n its 32nd canon, the \u0152cumenical Council of Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325 was\n inclined to make the obligation of celibacy at least for the\n _Ordines Majores_ a binding law over the whole church. But on the\n other hand the Egyptian bishop Paphnutius, a confessor and from\n his youth an ascetic, stoutly maintained that the fellowship of\n married persons too is chastity. His powerful voice decided the\n matter. The usual practice, however, was that bishops, presbyters\n and deacons should not contract a second marriage (1 Tim. iii. 2),\n after ordination should contract no marriage at all, and if\n previously married, should continue to live with their wives\n or not as they themselves should find most fit. The Easterns\n maintained this free standpoint and at the Synod of Gangra in\n A.D. 360 contended against the Eustathianists (\u00a7 44, 7) for\n the holiness of marriage and the legitimacy of married priests;\n and in the 5th Apost. Canon there was an express injunction:\n _Episcopus vel presbyter, vel diaconus uxorem suam non rejiciat\n religionis pr\u00e6texti; sin autem rejecerit segregetur, et si\n perseveret deponatur_. Examples of married bishops are not\n rare in the 4th and 5th centuries; _e.g._ the father of Gregory\n Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Synesius of Ptolemais, etc.\n Justinian I. forbade the election of a married man as bishop.\n The second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 (\u00a7 63, 2) confirmed this\n decree, interdicted second marriages to all the clergy, but, with\n an express protest against the unnatural hardness of the Roman\n church, allowed to presbyters a single marriage with all its\n privileges which, however, must have been entered upon before\n consecration, and during the period of service at the altar all\n marital intercourse had to be discontinued. In Rome, however, the\n Spanish principles were strictly maintained. A decretal of the\n Roman bishop, Siricius, in A.D. 385, with semi-Manich\u00e6an abuse\n of marriage, insisted on the celibacy of all bishops, presbyters\n and deacons, and Leo the Great included even subdeacons under\n this obligation. All the more distinguished Latin church\n teachers contended zealously for the universal application of\n the injunction of clerical celibacy. Yet there were numerous\n instances of the contravention of the order in Italy, in Gaul,\n and in Spain itself, and conformity could not be secured even by\n the most emphatic re-issue of the injunction by successive Synods.\n In the British and Iro-Scottish church the right of the clergy\n and even of bishops to marry was insisted upon (\u00a7 77, 3).[125]\n\n \u00a7 45.3. =Later Ecclesiastical Offices.=--In addition to the\n older church offices we now meet with attendants on the sick or\n =Parabolani=, from \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae\u03bd, and grave-diggers,\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, _Fossarii_, whose number in the capital cities rose to\n an almost incredible extent. They formed a bodyguard ever ready\n to gratify episcopal love of pomp. Theodosius II. in A.D. 418\n restricted the number of the Parabolani of Alexandria to six\n hundred and the number of the Copiati of Constantinople to nine\n hundred and fifty. For the administration of Church property\n there were \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9; for the administration of the laws of the\n church there were advocates, \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9, _Defensores_; for\n drawing up legal documents in regard to church affairs there were\n _Notarii_, \u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03cd\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, besides, Keepers of Archives, \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2,\n Librarians, _Thesaurarii_, \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, etc. None of these as\n such had clerical consecration. But also within the ranks of the\n _Ordines Majores_ new offices sprang up. In the 4th century we\n meet with an =Archdeacon= at the head of the deacons. He was the\n right hand of the bishop, his representative and plenipotentiary\n in the administration and government of the diocese, frequently\n also his successor in office. The college of presbyters, too, had\n as its head the =Arch-Presbyter= who represented and supported\n the bishop in all acts of public worship. A city presbyter\n was entrusted with the supervision of the country churches\n as =Visitor=. The African _Seniores plebis_ were mere lay\n elders without clerical ordination. The office of =Deaconess=\n more or less lost its significance and gradually fell into\n disuse.--Justinian I. restricted the number of ecclesiastical\n officers in the four great churches of Constantinople to 525;\n namely, in addition to the bishop, 60 presbyters, 100 deacons,\n 40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 110 readers, 24 singers, and\n 100 doorkeepers.\n\n \u00a7 45.4. =Church Property.=--The possessions of the church\n regularly increased by presents and bequests was regarded\n down to the 5th century generally as the property of the poor,\n _Patrimonium pauperum_, while the cost of maintaining public\n worship and supplying the clergy with the means of livelihood\n were defrayed by the voluntary contributions, _Oblationes_,\n of the church members. But the growing demands of the clergy,\n especially of the bishops, for an income corresponding to their\n official rank and the increasing magnificence of the service, led,\n first of all in Rome, to the apportioning of the whole sum into\n four parts; for the bishops, for the subordinate clergy, for the\n expenses of public worship (buildings, vestments, etc.), and for\n the needs of the poor. With the introduction of the Old Testament\n idea of priesthood the thought gradually gained ground that the\n laity were under obligation, at first regarded simply as a moral\n obligation, to surrender a tenth of all their possessions to the\n church, and at a very early date this, in the form of freewill\n offerings, was often realised. But the Council at Macon in\n A.D. 585, demanded these tithes as a right of the church resting\n on divine institution, without, however, being thereby able to\n effect what first was secured by the Carolingian legislation\n (\u00a7 86, 1). The demand that all property which a cleric earned in\n the service of the church, should revert to the church after his\n death, was given effect to in a Council at Carthage in A.D. 397.\n\n\n \u00a7 46A. THE PATRIARCHAL CONSTITUTION AND THE PRIMACY.[126]\n\n A hierarchical distinction of ranks among the bishops had already\nmade its appearance even in the previous period by the elevation of\nthe metropolitan see and the yet more marked precedency given to the\nso-called _Sedes apostolic\u00e6_ (\u00a7 34). This tendency got powerful support\nfrom the political divisions of the empire made by Constantine the\nGreat; for now the bishops of capital cities demanded an extension\nof their spiritual superiority corresponding to that given in secular\nauthority to the imperial governors. The guarding of earlier privileges\nalong with respectful consideration of more recent claims prevented\nthe securing of a perfect correspondence between the political and\nhierarchical distribution of ranks. The result of giving consideration\nto both was the development of the Patriarchal Constitution, in which\nthe bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem\nwere recognised as heads of the church universal of equal rank with\njurisdiction over the patriarchates assigned them. The first place in\nthis clerical Pentarchy was claimed by the Roman see, which ever more\nand more decidedly strove for the primacy of the whole church.\n\n \u00a7 46.1. =The Patriarchal Constitution.=--Constantine the Great\n divided the whole empire into four prefectures which were\n subdivided into dioceses, and these again into provinces. Many\n bishops then of the capitals of these dioceses, especially in the\n East, under the title of =Exarchs=, assumed a rank superior to\n that of the metropolitans, just as these had before arrogated a\n rank superior to that of provincial bishops. The first \u0153cumenical\n Council at Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325 (\u00a7 50, 1) affirmed on behalf of the\n bishops of the three most prominent _Sedes apostolic\u00e6_, =Rome=,\n =Alexandria= and =Antioch=, that their supremacy had been already\n established by old custom. The so-called second \u0153cumenical\n Council at Constantinople in A.D. 381 (\u00a7 50, 4) exempted the\n bishop of =Constantinople=, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd \u1fec\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd (since\n A.D. 330), from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Heraclea,\n and gave him the first rank after the bishop of Rome. To these\n distinguished prelates there was given the title of honour,\n =Patriarch=, which formerly had been given to all bishops; but\n the Roman bishops, declining to take common rank with the others,\n refused the title, and assumed instead the exclusive use of the\n title =Papa=, \u03a0\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, which had also been previously applied to\n all of episcopal rank. The fourth \u0153cumenical Council of Chalcedon\n in A.D. 451, in the 28th canon, ranked the patriarch of the\n Eastern capital along with the bishop of Rome, granted him\n the right of hearing complaints against the metropolitans of\n all dioceses that they might be decided at an _endemic_ Synod\n (\u00a7 43, 2), and as an equivalent to the vast dominions of\n his Roman colleague, gave him as an endowment in addition to\n his own patriarchal district, the three complete dioceses of\n Thrace, Pontus and Asia. The Exarchs of Heraclea in Thrace, of\n Neo-C\u00e6sarea in Pontus, and of Ephesus in Asia, thus placed under\n him, bearing the title of _Archbishops_, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, formed\n a hierarchical middle rank between him and the metropolitans of\n these dioceses, without, however, any strict definition of their\n status being given, so that their preferential rank remained\n uncertain and gradually fell back again into that of ordinary\n metropolitans. But even at Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325 the bishopric of\n =Jerusalem= had been declared worthy of very special honour,\n without, however, its subordination under the Metropolitan of\n C\u00e6sarea being disputed. Founding on this, Juvenal of Jerusalem\n in the 3rd \u0153cumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 claimed\n the rank and privileges of a patriarch, but on the motion of\n Cyril of Alexandria was refused. He then applied to the Emperor\n Theodosius II. who by an edict named him patriarch, and assigned\n to him all Palestine and Arabia. Maximus, however, patriarch\n of Antioch, who was thereby deprived of part of his diocese,\n persisted in protesting until at Chalcedon in A.D. 451 at\n least Ph\u0153nicia and Arabia were restored to him.--Within his own\n official district each of these five prelates exercised supreme\n spiritual authority, and at the head of his patriarchal Synod\n decided all the affairs of the churches within the bounds. Still\n many metropolitans, especially those of Salamis in Cyprus, of\n Milan, Aquileia and Ravenna maintained a position, as \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9,\n independent of any superiority of patriarchate or exarchate.\n Alongside of the patriarchs in the East there were \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 as\n councillors and assistants, and at the imperial court they were\n represented by permanent legates who were called _Apocrisiarians_.\n From the 6th century the Popes of Rome began by sending them the\n _pallium_ to confer confirmation of rank upon the newly-elected\n metropolitans of the West, who were called in these parts\n _Archiepiscopi_, Archbishops. The patriarchs meeting as a\n court represented the unity of the church universal. Without\n their consent no \u0153cumenical Council could be held, nor could any\n decision be binding on the whole church.--But first Jerusalem\n in A.D. 637, then Antioch in A.D. 638, and next Alexandria in\n A.D. 640, fell under the dominion of the Saracens.\n\n \u00a7 46.2. =The Rivalry between Rome and Byzantium.=--From the\n time of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 the patriarch of\n Constantinople continued to claim equality in rank and authority\n with the bishop of Rome. But the principle upon which in either\n case the claims to the primacy were based were already being\n interpreted strongly in favour of Rome. In the East the spiritual\n rank of the bishoprics was determined in accordance with the\n political rank of the cities concerned. Constantinople was the\n residence of the ruler of the \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, consequently its bishop\n was \u0153cumenical bishop. But in the eyes of the world Old Rome\n still ranked higher than the New Rome. All the proud memories of\n history clustered round the capital of the West. From Byzantium,\n on the other hand, dated the visible decline, the threatened\n overthrow of the empire. Moreover the West refused even to\n admit the principle itself. Not the will of the emperor, not the\n fortunes of the empire, ever becoming more and more deplorable,\n should determine the spiritual rank of the bishops, but the\n history of the church and the will of its Divine Founder and\n Head. Measured by this standard the see of Constantinople stood\n not only lower than those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem,\n but even below many other sees which though they scarcely had\n metropolitan rank, could yet boast of apostolic origin. Then,\n Rome unquestionably stood at the head of the church, for here\n had lived, confessed and suffered the two chief apostles, here\n too were their tombs and their bones; yea, still further, on the\n Roman chair had Peter sat as its first bishop (\u00a7 16, 1), whom the\n Lord Himself had called to the primacy of the Apostles (\u00a7 34, 8),\n and the Roman bishops were his successors and heirs of his\n privileges. The patriarch of Constantinople had nothing to\n depend upon but his nearness to the court. He was backed up\n and supported by the court, was only too often a tool in the\n hands of political parties and a defender of heresies which\n had the imperial favour. The case for the Roman bishop was\n incomparably superior. His being a member of the West-Roman\n empire, A.D. 395-476, with emperors for the most part weak and\n oppressed on all sides by the convulsions caused by the invasions\n of the barbarians, secured to him an incomparably greater\n freedom and independence of action, which was little, if at\n all, restricted by the Rugian and Ostrogoth invaders of Italy,\n A D. 476-536. And even in A.D. 536, when the Byzantine empire\n again obtained a footing in Italy, and held out with difficulty\n against the onslaught of the Longobards from A.D. 569 to A.D. 752\n within ever narrowing limits, the court could only seldom exercise\n an influence upon his proceedings or punish him for his refusal\n to yield by removal, imprisonment or exile. And while the East\n was rent by a variety of ecclesiastical controversies, in which\n sometimes the one, sometimes the other party prevailed, the\n West under the direction of Rome almost constantly presented the\n picture of undisturbed unity. The controversialists sought the\n mediating judgment of Rome, the oppressed sought its intercession\n and protection, and because the Roman bishops almost invariably\n lent the weight of their intellectual and moral influence to the\n cause of truth and right, the party in whose favour decision was\n given, almost certainly at last prevailed. Thus Rome advanced\n from day to day in the eyes of the Christian world, and soon\n demanded as a constant right what personal confidence or pressure\n of circumstances had won for it in particular cases. And in\n the course of time Rome has never let a favourable opportunity\n slip, never failed to hold what once was gained or even claimed\n with any possibility of success. A strong feeling in favour of\n strict hierarchical pretensions united all parties and found\n its rallying point in the chair of St. Peter; even incapable and\n characterless popes were upborne and carried through by means of\n this idea. Thus Rome advanced with firm step and steady aim, and\n in spite of all opposition and resistance continually approached\n nearer and nearer to the end in view. The East could at last hold\n on and save its ecclesiastical independence only by a complete\n and incurable division (\u00a7 67).\n\n\n \u00a7 46B. HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CHAIR AND ITS CLAIMS\n TO THE PRIMACY.[127]\n\n The history of the Roman bishopric during the first three centuries is\nalmost wholly enveloped in a cloud of legend which is only occasionally\nbroken by a gleam of historical light (see \u00a7 33, 3, 4, 5, 7; \u00a7 35, 5;\n\u00a7 37, 2; \u00a7 40, 2; \u00a7 41, 1, 3). Only after the martyr church became in\nthe 4th century the powerful state church does it really enter into\nthe field of regular and continuous history. And now also first begins\nthat striving after primacy, present from the earliest times among its\nbishops and inherited from the political supremacy of \u201ceternal Rome,\u201d\nto be prosecuted with success in political and ecclesiastical quarters.\nIts history, for which biographies of the popes down to the end of the\n9th century in the so-called _Liber pontificalis_ (\u00a7 90, 6) are most\ninstructive sources, certainly always in need of critical sifting in\na high degree, permits therefore and demands for our purposes at this\npoint earnest and close consideration.\n\n \u00a7 46.3. =From Melchiades to Julius I., A.D. 310 to A.D. 352.=--At\n the time when Constantine\u2019s conversion so completely changed the\n aspect of things =Melchiades= occupied the bishopric of Rome,\n A.D. 310 to A.D. 314. Even in A.D. 313 Constantine conferred on\n him as the chief bishop of the West the presidency of a clerical\n commission for inquiry into the Donatist schism (\u00a7 63, 1). Under\n =Sylvester I.=, A.D. 314 to A.D. 335, the Arian controversy\n broke out (\u00a7 50), in which, however, he laid no claim to be\n an authority on either side. That by his legates, Vitus and\n Vincentius [Vincent], he presided at the first \u0153cumenical\n Synod at Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325 is a purely Romish fabrication; no\n contemporary and none of the older historians know anything of it.\n On account of the rise in Egypt of the Meletian schism (\u00a7 41, 4)\n the 6th canon of the Council prescribes that the bishop of\n Alexandria \u201cin accordance with the old customs shall have\n jurisdiction over Egypt, in Libya and in Pentapolis, since it\n is also according to old custom for the bishop of Rome to have\n such jurisdiction, as also the churches in Antioch and in the\n other provinces.\u201d The Council, therefore, as Rufinus also and\n the oldest Latin collection of canons, the so-called _Prisca_,\n understand this canon, maintains that the ecclesiastical\n supremacy of the Roman chair extended not over all the West but\n only over the ten _suburbicarian_ provinces belonging to the\n diocese of Rome according to Constantine\u2019s division, _i.e._ over\n Middle and Southern Italy, with the islands of Sardinia, Corsica\n and Sicily. The bishop of Rome, however, was and continued by\n the wider development of the patriarchal constitution the sole\n patriarch in all the West. What more natural than that he should\n regard himself as the one patriarch _over_ all the West? But,\n even as the only _sedes apostolica_ of the West, Rome had already\n for a long time obtained a rank far beyond the limits of the\n Nicene canon. In doubtful cases application was made from all\n quarters of the West to Rome for instruction as to the genuine\n apostolic tradition, and the epistolary replies to such questions\n assumed even in the 4th century the tone of authoritative\n statements of the truth, _epistol\u00e6 decretales_. But down to\n A.D. 344 it was never attempted to claim the authority of Rome\n over the East in giving validity to any matter. In this year,\n however, the pressure of circumstances obliged the Council\n of Sardica (\u00a7 50, 2), after most of the Eastern bishops had\n already withdrawn, to agree to hand over to the bishop of\n Rome, =Julius I.=, A.D. 337-352, as a steadfast and consistent\n confessor of the orthodox faith in this age of ecclesiastical\n wavering, the right of receiving appeals from condemned bishops\n throughout the empire, and if he found them well supported, of\n appointing a new investigation by the bishops of the neighbouring\n province. But this decree affected only the person of Julius and\n was only the momentary makeshift of a hard-pressed minority. It\n therefore attracted no attention and was soon forgotten,--only\n Rome forgot it not.\n\n \u00a7 46.4. =From Liberius to Anastasius, A.D. 352 to\n A.D. 402.=--Julius\u2019 successor =Liberius=,[128] A.D. 352 to\n A.D. 366, maintained with equal steadfastness as his predecessor\n the confession of the orthodox Nicene faith, and was therefore\n banished by the Emperor Constantius in A.D. 355, who appointed\n as his successor the accommodating deacon Felix. But the members\n of the church would have nothing to do with the contemptible\n intruder, who moreover on the very day of the deportation of\n Liberius had solemnly sworn with the whole clergy of Rome to\n remain faithful to the exiled bishop. He succeeded indeed in\n drawing over to himself a considerable number of the clergy. The\n people, however, continued unfalteringly true to their banished\n bishop, and even after he had in A.D. 358 by signing a heretical\n creed (\u00a7 50, 3) obtained permission to return, they received him\n again with unfeigned joy. It was the emperor\u2019s wish that Liberius\n and Felix should jointly preside over the Roman church. But\n Felix was driven away by the people and could not again secure\n a footing among them. Liberius, who henceforth held his position\n in Rome as a Nic\u00e6an, amnestied those of the clergy who had\n fallen away. But the schism occasioned thereby in the church of\n Rome broke out with great violence after his death. A rigorist\n minority repudiated =Damasus I.=, A.D. 366 to A.D. 384, who had\n been chosen as his successor by the majority, because he too at\n an earlier date had belonged to the oath-breaking party of Felix.\n This minority elected Ursinus as anti-bishop. Over this there\n were contentions that led to bloodshed. The party of Damasus\n attacked the church of Ursinus and one hundred and thirty-seven\n corpses were carried out. Valentinian III. now exiled Ursinus,\n and Gratian in A.D. 378 by an edict conferred upon Damasus the\n right of giving decision without appeal as party and judge in\n one person against all bishops and clergy involved in the schism.\n In consequence of this victory of Damasus as partisan of Felix\n there was now formed in Rome a tradition which has passed over\n into the lists of the popes and the martyrologies, in which\n Liberius figures as the adherent of a heretical emperor and a\n bloody persecutor of the true Nicene faith and Felix II. as the\n legitimate pope. He is also confounded with the martyr Felix who\n suffered under Maximian and was celebrated in song by Paulinus\n Nolanus, and is thus represented as a holy martyr.[129] To the\n pontificate of =Siricius=, A.D. 384 to A.D. 398, the western\n church is indebted for the oldest extant papal decretals dating\n from A.D. 385 which contain a reply to various questions of\n the Spanish bishop couched quite in the hierarchical form and\n insisting in strong terms upon the binding obligation of clerical\n celibacy. Subsequently the same pope, burdened with \u201cthe care of\n all the churches,\u201d feels himself obliged to issue an _encyclical_\n to all the churches of the West, denouncing the frequent\n neglect of existing ecclesiastical laws. In the Origenist\n controversy between Jerome and Rufinus (\u00a7 51, 2) he favoured\n the latter;--whereas his successor, =Anastasius=, A.D. 398 to\n A.D. 402, took the side of Jerome.\n\n \u00a7 46.5. =From Innocent I. to Zosimus, A.D. 402 to A.D. 418.=--In\n consequence of the partition of the empire into an eastern and\n a western division in A.D. 364 (comp. \u00a7 42, 4), the claims of\n the Roman chair to ecclesiastical supremacy over the whole of the\n West were not only confirmed but also very considerably extended.\n For by this partition the western half of the empire included not\n only those countries which had previously been reckoned western,\n namely, Africa, Spain, Britain, Gaul and Italy, but also the\n prefecture of Illyricum (Greece, Thessaly, Macedonia, Dalmatia,\n Pannonia, M\u0153sia, Dacia) with its capital Thessalonica, and thus\n events played into the hands of those who pressed the patriarchal\n claims of Rome. Even when in A.D. 379 Eastern Illyria (Macedonia,\n M\u0153sia and Dacia) was attached to the Eastern empire, the Roman\n bishops continued still to regard it as belonging to their\n patriarchal domain. These claims were advanced with special\n emphasis and with corresponding success by =Innocent I.=,\n A.D. 402 to A.D. 417. When in A.D. 402 he intimated to the\n archbishop of Thessalonica his elevation to the chair, he at the\n same time transferred to him as his representative the oversight\n of all the Illyrian provinces, and to his successor, in A.D. 412,\n he sent a formal document of installation as Roman vicar. Not\n only did he apply to the Roman chair that canon of the Council\n of Sardica which had referred only to the person of Julius, but\n in a decretal to a Gallic bishop he extended also the clearly\n circumscribed right of appeal on the part of condemned bishops\n into an obligation to submit all \u201c_caus\u00e6 majores_\u201d to the\n decision of the apostolic see. From Africa a Carthaginian Synod\n in A.D. 404 sent messengers to Rome in order to secure its\n intercession with the emperor to put down the Donatists. From the\n East Theophilus of Alexandria and Chrysostom of Constantinople\n solicited the weighty influence of Rome in the Origenist\n controversy (\u00a7 51, 3); and Alexander of Antioch (\u00a7 50, 8)\n expresses the proud satisfaction he had, as only Western bishops\n had done before, in asking the Roman bishop\u2019s advice on various\n constitutional and disciplinary matters. During the Pelagian\n controversy (\u00a7 53, 4) the Palestinian Synod at Diospolis in\n A.D. 415 interceded with the Pope in favour of Pelagius accused of\n heresy in Africa; on the other hand the African Synods of Mileve\n and Carthage in A.D. 416 besieged him with the demand to give the\n sanction of his authority to their condemnation of the heretic.\n He took the side of the Anti-Pelagians, and Augustine could\n shower upon the heretics the pregnant words: _Roma locuta ...\n causa finita_.--The higher the authority of the Roman chair rose\n under Innocent, all the more painful to Rome must the humiliation\n have been, which his successor =Zosimus=, A.D. 417-418, called\n down upon it, when he, in opposition to his predecessor, took\n the part of Pelagius and his companion C\u0153lestius, and addressed\n bitter reproaches to the Africans for their treatment of him, but\n afterwards in consequence of their vigorous remonstrances and the\n interference of the emperor Honorius was obliged to withdraw his\n previous judgment and formally to condemn his quondam proteg\u00e9.\n And when a deposed presbyter of Africa, Apiarius, sought refuge\n in Rome, the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418, in which Augustine\n also took part, made this an excuse for forbidding under threat\n of excommunication any appeal _ad transmarina judicia_. Zosimus\n indeed appealed to the canon of the Sardican Synod, which he\n quoted as Nicene; but the Africans, to whom that canon was quite\n unknown, only said that on this matter they must make inquiries\n among the Eastern churches.[130]\n\n \u00a7 46.6. =From Boniface I. to Sixtus III., A.D. 419 to\n A.D. 440.=--After the death of Zosimus, 26th Dec., 418, a minority\n of the clergy and the people, by the hasty election and ordination\n of the deacon Eulalius, anticipated the action of the majority\n who chose the presbyter Boniface. The recommendation of the city\n prefect Symmachus secured for the former the recognition of the\n Emperor Honorius; but the determined remonstrance of the majority\n moved him to convene a Synod at Ravenna in A.D. 419 for a final\n settlement of the dispute. When the bishops there assembled\n could not agree, he called a new Synod to meet at Spoleto at the\n approaching Easter festival, and ordered, so as to make an end\n of disturbances and tumults in the city, that both rivals should\n quit Rome until a decision had been reached. Eulalius, however,\n did not regard the injunction but pushed his way by force of arms\n into the city. The Emperor now banished him from Rome on pain of\n death, and at Spoleto the bishops decided in consequence of the\n moderation he had shown, to recognise =Boniface I.=, A.D. 419 to\n A.D. 422, as bishop of Rome. His successor was =C\u0153lestine I.=,\n A.D. 422 to A.D. 432. Apiarius, who meanwhile, because he\n professed repentance and besought forgiveness, had been restored,\n began anew to offend, was again deposed, and again obtained\n protection and encouragement at Rome. But an African Synod at\n Carthage energetically protested against C\u0153lestine\u2019s interference,\n charging him with having often referred to a Nicene canon\n warranting the right of appeal to Rome which the most diligent\n inquiries among the churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and\n Antioch, had failed to discover. On the outbreak of the Nestorian\n controversy (\u00a7 52, 3) two opponents again sued for the favour\n of the Roman league; first of all, Nestorius of Constantinople,\n because he professed to have given particular information\n about the Pelagian-minded bishops driven from Italy who sought\n refuge in Constantinople (\u00a7 53, 4) and had immediately made a\n communication about the error of confounding the two natures of\n Christ which had recently sprung up in the East. The brotherly\n tone of this writing, free from any idea of subordination,\n found no response at Rome. The letters of Cyril of Alexandria\n proved more acceptable, filled as they were with cringing\n flatteries of the Roman chair and venomous invectives against the\n Constantinopolitan see and its occupier. C\u0153lestine unreservedly\n took the side of Cyril, commanded Nestorius under threat of\n deposition and excommunication within ten days to present to\n a Roman Synod, A.D. 420, a written retractation, and remitted\n to Cyril the carrying out of this judgment. To his legates at\n the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, he gave the instructions:\n _Auctoritatem sedis apostolic\u00e6 custodire debere mandamus.... Ad\n disceptationem si fuerit ventum, vos de eorum sententiis judicare\n debetis, non subire certamen._ The Council decided precisely\n according to C\u0153lestine\u2019s wish. The proud Alexandrian patriarch\n had recognised Rome as the highest court of appeal; a Western\n educated at Rome, named Maximian, thoroughly submissive to\n C\u0153lestine, was, with the pope\u2019s hearty approval, raised to the\n patriarchal see of Constantinople as successor of the deposed\n Nestorius; only John of Antioch opposed the decision. C\u0153lestine\u2019s\n successor =Sixtus III.=, A.D. 432 to A.D. 440, could already\n boast in A.D. 433 that he had put himself superior to the decrees\n of the Council, and in commemoration of the victory dedicated\n a beautiful church newly built to the mother of God, now called\n _S. Maria Maggiore_.[131]\n\n \u00a7 46.7. =From Leo the Great to Simplicius, A.D. 440 to\n A.D. 483.=--=Leo I.=, A.D. 440 to A.D. 461 (comp. \u00a7 47, 22),\n unquestionably up to that date the greatest of all the occupants\n of the Roman chair, was also the most powerful, the worthiest and\n most successful vindicator of its authority in the East as well\n as in the West; indeed he may be regarded as properly the founder\n of the Roman papacy as a universal episcopate with the full\n sanction of the civil power. Even the Western Fathers of the 4th\n and 5th centuries, such as Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine,\n as also Innocent I., had still interpreted the \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 of Matt.\n xvi. 18 partly of the confession of Peter, partly of the Person\n of Christ. First in the time of C\u0153lestine an attempt was made to\n refer it to the person of Peter. The legates of C\u0153lestine at the\n Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 had said: \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9. Thus they claimed\n universal primacy as of immediately Divine authority. Leo I.\n adopted this view with all his soul. In the most determined\n and persistent way he carried it out in the West; then next\n in proconsular Africa which had so energetically protested in\n the times of Innocent and C\u0153lestine against Romish pretensions.\n When news came to him of various improprieties spreading there,\n he sent a legate to investigate, and in consequence of his\n report addressed severe censures which were submitted to without\n opposition. The right of African clerics to appeal to Rome was\n also henceforth unchallenged. In Gaul, however, Leo had still to\n maintain a hard struggle with Hilary, archbishop of Arles, who,\n arrogating to himself the right of a primacy of Gaul, had deposed\n Celedonius, bishop of Besontio, _Besan\u00e7on_. But Leo took up his\n case and had him vindicated and restored by a Roman Synod. Hilary,\n who came himself to Rome, defied the Pope, escaped threatened\n imprisonment by secret flight, and was then deprived of his\n metropolitan rights. At the same time, in A.D. 445, Leo obtained\n from the young Emperor of the West, Valentinian III., a civil\n enactment which made every sort of resistance to the divinely\n established universal primacy of the Roman see an act of high\n treason.--In the East, too, Leo gained a higher position than had\n ever before been accorded to Rome on account of his moderation\n in the Eutychian controversy (\u00a7 52, 4). Once again was Rome\n called in to mediate between the two conflicting parties. At the\n Robber-Synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449, under the presidency of the\n tyrannical Dioscurus of Alexandria, the legates of Leo were not,\n indeed, allowed to speak. But at the next \u0153cumenical Council at\n Chalcedon in A.D. 451 his doctrine won a brilliant victory; even\n here, however, much objection was raised to his hierarchical\n pretensions. He demanded from the first the presidency for his\n legates, which, however, was assigned not to them, but to the\n imperial commissioners. The demand, too, for the expulsion of\n Dioscurus from the Synod, because he dared _Synodum facere sine\n auctoritate sedis apostolic\u00e6, quod mumquam licuit, numquem factum\n est_, did not, at first at least, receive the answer required.\n When, notwithstanding the opposition of the legates the question\n of the relative ranks of the patriarchs was dealt with, they\n withdrew from the session and subsequently protested against the\n 28th canon agreed upon at that session with a reference to the\n 6th Nicene canon which in the Roman _translation_, _i.e._ forgery,\n began with the words: _Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum_.\n But the Council sent the Acts with a dutiful report to Rome for\n confirmation, whereupon Leo strictly repudiated the 28th canon,\n threatening the church of Constantinople with excommunication,\n and so finally gained his point. The emperor annulled it in\n A.D. 454, and Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, was obliged\n to write a humble letter to Leo acquiescing in its erasure; but\n this did not prevent his successor from always maintaining its\n validity (\u00a7 63, 2).--When the wild hordes of Attila, king of the\n Huns, spread terror and consternation by their approach, Leo\u2019s\n priestly form appeared before him as a messenger of God, and\n saved Rome and Italy from destruction. Less successful was his\n priestly intercession with the Arian Vandal chief Genseric,\n whose army in A.D. 455 plundered, burnt and murdered throughout\n Rome for fourteen days; but all the more strikingly after his\n withdrawal did the pope\u2019s ability display itself in restoring\n comfort and order amid scenes of unutterable destitution and\n confusion.\n\n \u00a7 46.8. =From Felix III. to Boniface II., A.D. 483 to\n A.D. 532.=--Under Leo\u2019s second successor, the Rugian or Scyrrian\n Odoacer put an end to the West-Roman empire in A.D. 476 (\u00a7 76, 6).\n As to the enactments of the Roman state, although himself an\n Arian, after seventeen years of a wise rule he left untouched the\n orthodox Roman church, and the Roman bishops could under him, as\n under his successor, the Ostrogoth Theodoric, also an Arian, from\n A.D. 493 to A.D. 526, more freely exercise their ecclesiastical\n functions than under the previous government, all the more\n as neither of these rulers resided in Rome but in Ravenna.\n =Pope Felix III.=, A.D. 483 to A.D. 492, in opposition to the\n Byzantine ecclesiastical policy, which by means of the imperial\n authority had for quite a hundred years retarded the development\n of the orthodox doctrine (\u00a7 52, 5), began a schism lasting\n for thirty-five years between East and West, from A.D. 484 to\n A.D. 519, which no suspicion of disloyal combination with the\n Western rulers can account for. On the appointment of Felix III.\n Odoacer assumed the right of confirming all elections of Popes,\n just as previously the West Roman emperors had claimed, and Rome\n submitted without resistance. The Gothic kings, too, maintained\n this right.--=Gelasius I.=, A.D. 492 to A.D. 496 (comp. \u00a7 47, 22),\n ventured before the Emperor Anastasius I., in A.D. 493, to\n indicate the relation of _Sacerdotium_ and _Imperium_ according\n to the Roman conception, which already exhibits in its infant\n stage of development the medi\u00e6val theory of the two swords\n (\u00a7 110, 1) and the favourite analogy of the sun and the moon\n (\u00a7 96, 9). His peaceable successor =Anastasius II.=, A.D. 496 to\n A.D. 498, entered into negotiations for peace with the Byzantine\n court; but a number of Roman fanatics wished on this account to\n have him cast out of the communion of the church, and saw in his\n early death a judgment of heaven upon his conduct. He has ever\n since been regarded as a heretic, and as such even Dante consigns\n him to a place in hell. After his death there was a disputed\n election between =Symmachus=, A.D. 498 to A.D. 514, and Laurentius.\n The schism soon degenerated into the wildest civil war, in which\n blood was shed in the churches and in the streets. Theodoric\n decided for Symmachus as the choice of the majority and the first\n ordained, but his opponents then charged him before the king as\n guilty of the gravest crimes. To investigate the charges brought\n against the bishop the king now convened at Rome a Synod of all\n the Italian bishops, _Synodus palmaris_ of A.D. 502, so called\n from the porch of St. Peter\u2019s Church adorned with palms, where it\n first met. As Symmachus on his way to it was met by a wild mob of\n his opponents and only narrowly escaped with his life, Theodoric\n insisted no longer on a regular proof of the charges against\n him. The bishops without any investigation freely proclaimed him\n their pope, and the deacon Eunodius of Pavia, known also as a\n hymn writer, commissioned by them to make an apology for their\n procedure, laid down the proposition that the pope who himself is\n judge over all, cannot be judged of any man. Bloody street fights\n between the two parties, however, still continued by day and\n night. Symmachus\u2019 successor =Hormisdas=, A.D. 514 to A.D. 523,\n had the satisfaction of seeing the Byzantine court, in order\n to prepare the way for the winning back of Italy, seeking\n for reconciliation with the Western church, and in A.D. 519\n submitting to the humbling conditions of restoration to church\n fellowship offered by the pope. A sharp edict of the West Roman\n emperor Justin II. against the Arians of his empire caused\n Theodoric to send an embassy in their favour to Constantinople,\n at the head of which stood =John I.=, A.D. 523 to A.D. 526, with\n a threat of reprisals. The pope, however, seems rather to have\n utilized his journey for intrigues against the Italian government\n of the Goths, for after his return Theodoric caused him to\n be cast into prison, in which he died. He was succeeded by\n =Felix IV.= A.D. 526 to A.D. 530, after whose death the election\n was again disputed by two rivals. This schism, however, was only\n of short duration, since Dioscurus, the choice of the majority,\n died during the next month. His rival =Boniface II.=, A.D. 530\n to A.D. 532, a Goth by birth and favoured by the Ostrogoth\n government, applied himself with extreme severity to put down\n the opposing party.\n\n \u00a7 46.9. =From John II. to Pelagius II., A.D. 532 to\n A.D. 590.=--Meanwhile Justinian I. had been raised to the\n Byzantine throne, and his long reign from A.D. 527 to A.D. 565,\n was in many ways a momentous one for the fortunes of the Roman\n bishopric. The reconquest of Italy, from A.D. 536 to A.D. 553, by\n his generals Belisarius and Narses, and the subsequent founding\n of the Exarchate at Ravenna in A.D. 567, at the head of which a\n representative of the emperor, a so-called Roman patrician stood,\n freed the pope indeed from the control of the Arian Ostrogoths\n which since the restoration of ecclesiastical fellowship with the\n East had become oppressive, but it brought them into a new and\n much more serious dependence. For Justinian and his successors\n demanded from the Roman bishops as well as from the patriarchs of\n Constantinople unconditional obedience.--=Agapetus I.=, A.D. 535\n to A.D. 536, sent as peacemaker by the Goths to Constantinople,\n escaped the fate of John I. perhaps just because he suddenly died\n there. Under his successor =Silverius=, A.D. 536 to A.D. 537,\n Belisarius, in December, A.D. 536, made his entry into Rome,\n and in the March following he deposed the pope and sentenced\n him to banishment. This he did at the instigation of the Empress\n Theodora whose machinations in favour of Monophysitism had been\n already felt by Agapetus. Theodora had already designated the\n wretched =Vigilius=, A.D. 537 to A.D. 555, as his successor. He\n had purchased her favour by the promise of two hundred pounds\n of gold and acquiescence in the condemnation of the so-called\n _three chapters_ (\u00a7 52, 6) so eagerly desired by her. Owing\n to his cowardliness and want of character Africa, North Italy\n and Illyria shook off their allegiance to the Roman see and\n maintained their independence for more than half a century.\n Terrified by this disaster he partly retracted his earlier\n agreement with the empress, and Justinian sent him into exile.\n He submitted unconditionally and was forgiven, but died before\n reaching Rome. =Pelagius I.=, A.D. 555 to A.D. 560, also a\n creature of Theodora, subscribed the agreement and so confirmed\n the Western schism which Gregory the Great first succeeded in\n overcoming.--The fantastic attempt of Justinian to raise his\n obscure birthplace Tauresium, the modern Bulgarian Achrida, to\n the rank of a metropolis as Justinianopolis or _Prima Justiniana_,\n and its bishop to the rank of patriarch with Eastern Illyria as\n his patriarchate, proved, notwithstanding the consent of Vigilius,\n a still-born child.\n\n \u00a7 46.10. =From Gregory I. to Boniface V., A.D. 590 to\n A.D. 625.=--After the papal chair had been held by three\n insignificant popes in succession =Gregory the Great=, A.D. 590\n to A.D. 604 (comp. \u00a7 47, 22), was raised to the Apostolic\n see, the greatest, most capable, noblest, most pious and most\n superstitious in the whole long series of popes. He took the\n helm of the church at a time when Italy was reduced to the most\n terrible destitution by the savage and ruthless devastations of\n the Arian Longobards lasting over twenty years (\u00a7 76, 8), and\n neither the emperor nor his exarch at Ravenna had the means of\n affording help. Gregory could not allow Italy and the church to\n perish utterly under these desperate circumstances, and so was\n compelled to assume the functions of civil authority. When the\n Longobards in A.D. 593 oppressed Rome to the uttermost there\n remained nothing for him but to purchase their withdrawal with\n the treasures of the church, and the peace finally concluded\n with them in A.D. 599 was his and not the exarch\u2019s work. The\n exceedingly rich possessions of lands and goods, the so-called\n _Patrimonium Petri_, extending throughout all Italy and the\n islands, brought him the authority of a powerful secular prince\n far beyond the bounds of the Roman duchy, in comparison with\n which the rank of the exarch himself was insignificant. The\n Longobards too treated with him as an independent political power.\n Gregory, therefore, may rightly be regarded as the first founder\n of the temporal power of the Papacy on Italian soil. But all\n this as we can easily understand provoked no small dislike of\n the pope at Constantinople. The pope, on the other hand, was\n angry with the Emperor Maurice because he gave no consideration\n to his demand that the patriarch, Johannes Jejunator, should\n be prohibited from assuming the title \u1f18\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n Gregory\u2019s own position in regard to the primacy appears from\n his Epistles. He writes to the bishop of Syracuse: _Si qua culpa\n in episcopis invenitur, nescio, quis Sedi apostolic\u00e6 subjectus\n non sit; cum vero culpa non existit, omnes secundum rationem\n humilitatis \u00e6quales sunt_. And with this reservation it was\n certainly meant when he, in a letter to the patriarch of\n Alexandria, who had addressed him as \u201c_Universalis Papa_,\u201d\n most distinctly refused this title and readily conceded to\n the Alexandrian as well as to the Antiochean see, as of Petrine\n origin (the Antiochean directly, \u00a7 16, 1; the Alexandrian\n indirectly through Mark, \u00a7 16, 4), equal rank and dignity with\n that of Rome; and when he denounced as an anti-Christ every\n bishop who would raise himself above his fellow bishops. Thus\n he compared Johannes Jejunator to Lucifer who wished to exalt\n himself above all the angels. Gregory, on the other hand, in\n proud humility styled himself, as all subsequent popes have done,\n _Servus servorum Dei_. When he extolled the Frankish Jezebel\n Brunhilda [Brunehilda] (\u00a7 77, 7), who had besought him to send\n her relics and at another time a pallium for a bishop, as an\n exemplary pious Christian woman and a wise ruler, he may, owing\n to the defective communication between Rome and Gaul, have had\n no authentic information about her doings and disposition. The\n memory of the otherwise noble-minded pope is more seriously\n affected by his conduct in reference to the emperor Phocas,\n A.D. 602 to A.D. 610, the murderer of the noble and just emperor\n Maurice, whom he congratulates upon his elevation to the throne,\n and makes all the angelic choirs of heaven and all tongues on\n earth break forth in jubilees and hymns of thanksgiving; but even\n here again, when he thus wrote, the news of his iniquities,--not\n only the slaughter of the emperor, but also of his queen, his\n five sons and three daughters, etc., by which this demon in\n human form cut his way to the throne,--may not have been known to\n him in their full extent.--Phocas, however, showed himself duly\n thankful, for at the request of pope =Boniface III.=, A.D. 606\n to A.D. 607, he refused to allow the patriarch of Constantinople\n to assume the title of Universal bishop, while at the same time\n he formally acknowledged the chair of Peter at Rome as _Caput\n omnium ecclesiarum_. To the next pope =Boniface IV.=, A.D. 608 to\n A.D. 615, he presented the beautiful Pantheon at Rome, which from\n being a temple dedicated to Cybele, the mother of the gods, and\n to all the gods, he turned into a church of the mother of God and\n of all the martyrs.[132]\n\n \u00a7 46.11. =From Honorius I. to Gregory III., A.D. 625 to\n A.D. 741.=--For almost fifty years, from A.D. 633 under\n =Honorius I.=, A.D. 625 to A.D. 638, the third successor of\n Boniface IV., the _Monothelite controversy_ (\u00a7 52, 8) continued\n its disastrous course. Honorius, a pious and peace-loving man,\n had seen nothing objectionable in this attempt of the Emperor\n Heraclius (A.D. 611 to A.D. 641) to win the numerous Monophysites\n back to the unity of the church by the concession of _one_ will\n in the two natures of Christ, and was prepared to co-operate in\n the work. But the conviction grew more and more strong that the\n doctrine proposed in the interests of peace was itself heretical.\n All subsequent bishops of Rome therefore unanimously condemned as\n an accursed heresy (\u00a7 52, 9), what their predecessor Honorius had\n agreed to and confessed. This explains how the exarch of Ravenna\n delayed for more than a year the confirmation of the election\n of the next pope, =Severinus=, A.D. 638 to A.D. 640, and granted\n it only in A.D. 640 as amends for his wholesale plundering of\n the treasury of the Roman church to supply his own financial\n deficiencies. In the time of =Martin I.=, A.D. 649 to A.D. 653,\n the Emperor Constans II., A.D. 642 to A.D. 668, sought to make\n an end of the bitter controversy by the strict prohibition of any\n statement as to one will or two wills. The determined pope had to\n suffer for his opposition by severe imprisonment and still more\n trying banishment, in which he suffered from hunger and other\n miseries (A.D. 655). The new emperor Constantinus Pogonnatus,\n A.D. 668 to A.D. 685, finally recognised the indispensable\n necessity of securing reconciliation with the West. In A.D. 680,\n he convened an \u0153cumenical Council at Constantinople at which the\n legates of the pope =Agatho=, A.D. 678 to A.D. 682, the fifth\n successor of Martin I., once more prescribed to the Greeks what\n should henceforth be regarded throughout the whole empire as\n the orthodox faith. The Council sent its Acts to Rome with the\n request that they might be confirmed, which Agatho\u2019s successor,\n =Leo II.=, A.D. 682 to A.D. 683, did, notwithstanding the\n condemnation therein very pointedly expressed of the heretical\n pope Honorius, which indeed he explicitly approved.--Once again\n in A.D. 686, the Roman church was threatened with a schism by a\n double election to the papal chair. This, however, was averted\n by the opposing electors, lay and clerical, agreeing to set\n aside both candidates and uniting together in the election of\n the =Thracian Conon=, A.D. 686 to A.D. 687. Precisely the same\n thing happened with a similar result on the death of Conon.\n The new candidate whom both parties agreed upon this time was\n =Sergius I.=, A.D. 687 to A.D. 701, but he was obliged to purchase\n the exarch\u2019s confirmation by a present of a hundred pounds of gold.\n His rejection of the conclusions of the second Trullan Council\n at Constantinople in A.D. 692 (\u00a7 63, 2), which in various points\n disregarded the pretensions of Rome, brought him into conflict\n with the emperor Justinian II., A.D. 685 to A.D. 711. The result\n of this contest was to show that the power and authority of the\n pope in Italy were at this time greater than those of the emperor.\n When the emperor sent a high official to Rome with the order\n to bring the pope prisoner to Constantinople, almost the whole\n population of the exarchate gathered out in the pope\u2019s defence.\n The Byzantine ambassador sought and obtained protection from the\n pope, under whose bed he crept, and was then allowed to quit Rome\n in safety, followed by the scorn and abuse of the people. Soon\n thereafter, in A.D. 695, Justinian was overthrown, and with slit\n ears and nose sent into exile. In A.D. 705, having been restored\n by the Bulgarian king, he immediately took fearful revenge upon\n the rebel inhabitants of Ravenna. Pope Constantine I., A.D. 708\n to A.D. 715, intimidated by what he had seen, did not dare to\n refuse the imperial mandate which summoned him to Byzantium\n for the arrangement of ecclesiastical differences. With fear\n and trembling he embarked. But he succeeded in coming to an\n understanding with the emperor, who received and dismissed him\n with every token of respect. Under his successor, =Gregory II.=,\n A.D. 715 to A.D. 731, the Byzantine iconoclast controversy\n (\u00a7 66, 1) gave occasion to an almost complete rupture between\n the papacy and the Byzantine empire; and under =Gregory III.=,\n A.D. 731 to A.D. 741, the papacy definitely withdrew from the\n Byzantine and put itself under the Frankish government. Down to\n the latest age of the exarchate of Ravenna the confirmation of\n papal elections by the emperor or his representative, the exarch,\n was always maintained, and only after it had been given was\n consecration allowed. This is proved both from the biographies\n of the papal books and from the relative formul\u00e6 of petition in\n the _Liber diurnus Rom. Pontificum_, a collection of formul\u00e6 for\n the performance of the most important acts in the service of the\n Romish Church made between A.D. 685 and A.D. 751. The election\n itself was in the hands of the three orders of the city (_clerus_,\n _exercitus_ and _populus_).--Continuation \u00a7 82.\n\n\n\n\n III. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.\n\n\n \u00a7 47. THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND THEIR MOST CELEBRATED\n REPRESENTATIVES.\n\n The Ancient Church reached its highest glory during the 4th and\n5th centuries. The number of theological schools properly so-called\n(\u00a7 45, 1) was indeed small, and so the most celebrated theologians\nwere self-taught in theology. But all the greater must the intellectual\nresources of this age have been and all the more powerful the general\nstriving after culture, when the outward means, helps and opportunities\nfor obtaining scientific training were so few. The middle of the 5th\ncentury, marked by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, may be regarded\nas the turning point where the greatest height in theological science\nand in other ecclesiastical developments was reached, and from this\npoint we may date the beginnings of decline. After this the spirit\nof independent research gradually disappeared from the Eastern as\nwell as from the Western Church. Political oppression, hierarchical\nexclusiveness, narrowing monasticism and encroaching barbarism choked\nall free scientific effort, and the industry of compilers took the place\nof fresh youthful intellectual production. The authority of the older\nchurch teachers stood so high and was regarded as binding in so eminent\na degree that at the Councils argument was carried on almost solely\nby means of quotations from the writings of those fathers who had been\nrecognised as orthodox.\n\n \u00a7 47.1. =The Theological Schools and Tendencies:=\n\n a. =In the 4th and 5th centuries.=--Since the time of the\n two Dionysiuses (\u00a7 33, 7) the Alexandrian theology had\n been divided into two different directions which we may\n distinguish as the old and the new Alexandrian. =The Old\n Alexandrian School= held by the subordinationist view\n of Origen and strove to keep open to scientific research\n as wide a field as possible. Its representatives showed\n deep reverence for Origen but avoided his more eccentric\n speculations. Its latest offshoot was the _Semiarianism_\n with which it came to an end in the middle of the 4th\n century. This same free scientific tendency in theology\n was yet more decidedly shown in =the Antiochean School=.\n Although at first animated by the spirit which Origen had\n introduced into theology, its further development was a\n thoroughly independent one, departing from its original\n in many particulars. To the allegorical method of\n interpretation of the Origenist school it opposed\n the natural grammatico-historical interpretation, to its\n mystical speculation, clear positive thinking. Inquiry into\n the simple literal sense of holy scripture and the founding\n of a purely biblical theology were its tasks. Averse to all\n mysteries, it strove after a positive, rational conception\n of Christianity and after a construction of dogma by\n means of clear logical thought. Hence its dogmatic aim was\n pre-eminently the careful distinguishing of the divine and\n human in Christ and in Christianity, forming a conception\n of each by itself and securing especially in both due\n recognition of the human. The theology of the national\n =East-Syrian Church=, far more than that of the Antiochean\n or Gr\u00e6co-Syrian, was essentially bound down by tradition.\n It had its seminaries in the theological schools of Nisibis\n and Edessa. The oriental spirit was here displayed in an\n unrestricted manner; also a tendency to theosophy, mysticism\n and asceticism, a special productiveness in developing forms\n of worship and constitution, and withal doctrinal stability.\n In their exegesis the members of this school co-operated\n with the Antiocheans, though not so decidedly, in opposing\n the arbitrary allegorizing of the Origenist school, but\n their exegetical activity was not, as with the Antiocheans,\n scientific and critical but rather practical and homiletical.\n =The New Alexandrian School= was the prevailing one for the\n 4th century so far as Alexandrian culture was concerned.\n Its older representatives, at least, continued devotedly\n attached to Origen and favourable to the speculative\n treatment of Christian doctrine introduced by him. But\n they avoided his unscriptural extravagances and carried out\n consistently the ecclesiastical elements of his doctrine. By\n a firm acceptance of the doctrine of the eternal generation\n of the Son they overcame the subordinationism of their\n master, and in this broke away from the old Alexandrian\n school and came into closer relations to the theology of the\n Western church. To the Antiochean school, however, they were\n directly opposed in respect of the delight they took in the\n mysteries of Christianity, and their disinclination to allow\n the reason to rule in theology. The union of the divine and\n human in Christ and in Christianity seemed to them a sublime,\n incomprehensible mystery, any attempt to resolve it being\n regarded as alike useless and profane. But in this way\n the human element became more and more lost to view and\n became absorbed in the divine. They energetically affirmed\n the inseparable union of the two, but thereby lost the\n consciousness of their distinctness and fell into the\n contrary error of Antiochean onesidedness. With Cyril of\n Alexandria the New Alexandrian school properly began to\n assume the form of a sect and to show symptoms of decay,\n although he himself retained the reputation of an orthodox\n teacher. =The Western Theology= of this period, as well as\n its North-African precursor (\u00a7 31, 10, 11), energetically\n insisted upon the application of Christianity to the life,\n the development of the doctrines affecting this matter\n and the maintenance of the church system of doctrine as a\n strong protection against all wilfulness in doctrine. In\n it therefore the traditional theology finds its chief home.\n Still the points of contact with the East were so many and\n so vital that however much inclined to stability the West\n might be, it could not altogether remain unmoved and without\n enrichment from the theological movements of the age. Thus\n we distinguish in the West four different but variously\n inter-connected tendencies. First of all there is the\n genuinely _Western_, which is separated on the one hand in\n Tertullian and Cyprian, but on the other hand is variously\n influenced by the talented teachers of the New Alexandrian\n School, which continued to mould and dominate the cultured\n theology of the West. Its chief representatives are\n Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, and above all, Augustine,\n who completely freed the Latin theology from its hitherto\n prevailing dependence on the Greek, placing it now upon its\n own feet. The representatives of this tendency were at first\n in complete accord with the members of the New Alexandrian\n school in their opposition to the semi-Arian Origenists\n and the Nestorianizing Antiocheans, but then as that school\n itself drifted into the position of a heretical sect, they\n also decidedly contended for the other side of the truth\n which the Antiochean school maintained. A second group of\n Western theologians were inspired by the writings of Origen,\n without, however, abandoning the characteristics of the\n Western spirit. To this class belongs Jerome, who afterwards\n repudiated his master and joined the previously named school,\n and Rufinus. The third group of Pelagians represent the\n practical but cool rationalistic tendency of the West. The\n fourth is that of the semi-Pelagians who in the Western\n theology intermingle synergistic elements of an Antiochean\n complexion.\n\n b. =Of the 6th and 7th Centuries.=--The brilliant period\n of theological literature had now closed. There still\n were scholars who wrought laboriously upon the original\n contributions of the fathers, and reproduced the thoughts\n of their predecessors in a new shape suited to the needs\n of the time, but spirit and life, creative power and\n original productivity had well nigh disappeared. After the\n monophysite Johannes Philoponus of Alexandria had commented\n on the works of Aristotle and applied their categories\n to theology, the Platonic philosophy, hitherto on account\n of its ideal contents the favourite of all philosophizing\n church fathers, was more and more set aside by the\n philosophy of the Stagirite so richly developed on the\n formal side. The theology of the Greeks even at so early a\n date assumed to some extent the character of Scholasticism.\n Alongside of it, however, we have a theosophic mysticism\n which reverting from the tendency that had lately come into\n vogue to Neoplatonic ideas, drew its chief inspiration from\n the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. In the West, in addition to\n the general causes of decay, we have also the sufferings of\n the times amid the tumult of the migration of the nations.\n In Italy Bo\u00ebthius and Cassiodorus won for themselves\n imperishable renown as the fosterers of classical and\n patristic studies in an age when these were in danger of\n being utterly forgotten. The series of Latin church fathers\n in the strict sense ends with Gregory the Great; that of\n Greek church fathers with Johannes Damascenus.\n\n\n\n\n 1. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.\n\n \u00a7 47.2. =The Most Celebrated Representative of the Old\n Alexandrian School= is the father of Church History =Eusebius\n Pamphili=, _i.e._, the friend of Pamphilus (\u00a7 31, 6), bishop\n of C\u00e6sarea from A.D. 314 to A.D. 340. The favour of the emperor\n Constantine laid the imperial archives open to him for his\n historical studies. By his unwearied diligence as an investigator\n and collector he far excels all the church teachers of his age\n in comprehensive learning, to which we owe a great multitude of\n precious extracts from long lost writings of pagan and Christian\n antiquity. His style is jejune, dry and clumsy, sometimes\n bombastic. His =Historical Writings= supported on all sides by\n diligent research, want system and regularity, and suffer from\n disproportionate treatment and distribution of the material. To\n his \u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 in 10 bks., reaching down to A.D. 324,\n he adds a highly-coloured biography of Constantine in 4 bks.,\n which is in some respects a continuation of his history; and\n to it, again, he adds a fawning panegyric on the emperor.--At\n a later date he wrote an account of the Martyrs of Palestine\n during the Diocletian persecution which was afterwards added\n as an appendix to the 8th bk. of the History. A collection of\n old martyrologies, three bks. on the life of Pamphilus, and a\n treatise on the origin, celebration and history of the Easter\n festival, have all been lost. Of great value, especially for the\n synchronizing of biblical and profane history, was his diligently\n compiled Chronicle, \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u1f74 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, similar to that of Julius\n Africanus (\u00a7 31, 3), an abstract of universal history reaching\n down to A.D. 352, to which chronological and synchronistic tables\n were added as a second part. The Greek original has been lost,\n but Jerome translated it into Latin, with arbitrary alterations,\n and carried it down to A.D. 378.--The =Apologetical Writings=\n take the second place in importance. Still extant are the two\n closely-connected works: _Pr\u00e6paratio Evangelica_, \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ae, in 15 bks., and the _Demonstratio Evangelica_,\n \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, in 8 out of an original of 20 bks. The\n former proves the absurdity of heathenism; the latter, the truth\n and excellence of Christianity. A condensed reproduction of\n the contents and text of the \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 in 5 bks. is found only\n in a Syriac translation. The \u1f18\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af in 4 bks., of\n which only a portion is extant, expounds the Old Testament in an\n allegorizing fashion for apologetic purposes; and the treatise\n against Hierocles (\u00a7 23, 3) contests his comparison of Christ\n with Apollonius of Tyana. A treatise in 30 bks. against Porphyry,\n and some other apologetical works are lost.--His =Dogmatic\n Writings= are of far less value. These treatises--\u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5,\n in 2 bks., the one already named against Hierocles, and \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, also against Marcellus (\u00a7 50, 2)--are\n given as an Appendix in the editions of the _Demonstratio\n Evangelica_. On his share in Pamphilus\u2019 Apology for Origen, see\n \u00a7 31, 6; and on his Ep. to the Princess Constantia, see \u00a7 57, 4.\n The weakness of his dogmatic productions was caused by his\n vacillating and mediating position in the Arian controversy,\n where he was the mouthpiece of the moderate semi-Arians\n (\u00a7 50, 1, 3), and this again was due to his want of speculative\n capacity and dogmatic culture.--Of his =Exegetical Writings=\n the Commentaries on Isaiah and the Psalms are the most complete,\n but of the others we have only fragments. We have, however, his\n \u03a4\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac in the Latin translation of Jerome: _De Situ et Nominibus\n Locorum Hebraeorum_.[133]\n\n \u00a7 47.3. =Church Fathers of the New Alexandrian School.=\n\n a. The most conspicuous figure in the church history of the\n 4th century is =Athanasius=, styled by an admiring posterity\n _Pater orthodoxi\u00e6_. He was indeed every inch of him a church\n father, and the history of his life is the history of the\n church of his times. His life was full of heroic conflict.\n Unswervingly faithful, he was powerful and wise in building\n up the church; great in defeat, great in victory. His was a\n life in which insight, will and action, earnestness, force\n and gentleness, science and faith, blended in most perfect\n harmony. In A.D. 319 he was a deacon in Alexandria. His\n bishop Alexander soon discovered the eminent gifts of the\n young man and took him with him to the Council of Nic\u00e6a\n in A.D. 325, where he began the battle of his life. Soon\n thereafter, in A.D. 328, Alexander died and Athanasius\n became his successor. He was bishop for forty-five years,\n but was five times driven into exile. He spent about\n twenty years in banishment, mostly in the West, and died\n in A.D. 373. His writings are for the most part devoted\n to controversy against the Arians (\u00a7 50, 6); but he\n also contested Apollinarianism (\u00a7 52, 1), and vindicated\n Christianity against the attacks of the heathens in the\n pre-Arian treatise in two bks. _Contra Gentes_, \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n the first bk. of which argues against heathenism, while the\n second expounds the necessity of the incarnation of God in\n Christ. For a knowledge of his life and pastoral activity\n the _Libr\u00ee paschales_, Festal letters (\u00a7 56, 3), are of\n great value.[134] Of less importance are his exegetical,\n allegorical writings on the Psalms. His dogmatic,\n apologetical and polemical works are all characterized\n by sharp dialectic and profound speculation, and afford\n a great abundance of brilliant thoughts, skilful arguments\n and discussions on fundamental points in a style as clear\n as it is eloquent; but we often miss systematic arrangement\n of the material, and they suffer from frequent repetition\n of the same fundamental thoughts, defects which, from the\n circumstances of their composition, amid the hot combats of\n his much agitated life, may very easily be understood and\n excused.[135]\n\n \u00a7 47.4. =(The Three Great Cappadocians.)=--\n\n b. =Basil the Great=, bishop of his native city of C\u00e6sarea\n in Cappadocia, is in very deed a \u201ckingly\u201d figure in church\n history. His mother Emmelia and his grandmother Macrina\n early instilled pious feelings into his youthful breast.\n Studying at Athens, a friendship founded on love to the\n church and science soon sprang up between him and his\n likeminded countryman Gregory Nazianzen, and somewhat\n later his own brother Gregory of Nyssa became an equally\n attached member of the fraternity. After he had visited\n the most celebrated ascetics in Syria, Palestine and\n Egypt, he continued long to live in solitude as an ascetic,\n distributed his property among the poor, and became\n presbyter in A.D. 364, bishop in A.D. 370. He died in\n A.D. 379. The whole rich life of the man breathed of the\n faith that overcometh the world, of self-denying love and\n noble purpose. He gave the whole powers of his mind to\n the holding together of the Catholic church in the East\n during the violent persecution of the Arian Valens. The\n most beautiful testimony to his noble character was the\n magnificent Basil institute, a hospital in C\u00e6sarea, to which\n he, while himself living in the humblest manner, devoted\n all his rich revenues. His writings, too, entitle Basil\n to a place among the most distinguished church fathers.\n They afford evidence of rich classical culture as well as of\n profound knowledge of Scripture and of human nature, and are\n vigorous in expression, beautiful and pictorial in style.\n In exegesis he follows the allegorical method. Among his\n dogmatic writings the following are the most important:\n Ll. 5 _Adv. Eunomium_ (\u00a7 50, 3) and _De Spiritu s. ad\n Amphilochium_ against the Pneumatomachians (\u00a7 50, 5). The\n other writings bearing his name comprise 365 Epistles,\n moral and ascetic tractates, Homilies on the Hex\u00e6meron and\n 13 Psalms, and Discourses (among them, \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n \u1f41\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f11\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f60\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd), a larger and a\n short Monastic rule, and a Liturgy.[136]\n\n c. =Gregory Nazianzen= was born in the Cappadocian village\n Arianz. His father Gregory, in his earlier days a\n Hypsistarian (\u00a7 42, 6), but converted by his pious wife\n Nonna, became bishop of Nazianzum [Nazianzen]. The son, after\n completing his studies in C\u00e6sarea, Alexandria and Athens,\n spent some years with Basil in his cloister in Pontus, but,\n when his father allowed himself to be prevailed upon to sign\n an Arianizing confession, he hasted to Nazianzum [Nazianzen],\n induced him to retract, and was there and then suddenly and\n against his will ordained by him a presbyter in A.D. 361.\n From that time, always vacillating between the desire for\n a quiet contemplative ascetic life and the impulse toward\n ecclesiastical official activity, easily attracted and\n repelled, not without ambition, and so sometimes irritable\n and out of humour, he led a very changeful life, which\n prevented him succeeding in one definite calling. Basil\n transferred to him the little bishopric of Sasima; but\n Gregory fled thence into the wilderness to escape the\n ill-feelings stirred up against him. He was also for a long\n time assistant to his father in the bishopric of Nazianzum\n [Nazianzen]. He withdrew, however, in A.D. 375, when the\n congregation in spite of his refusal appointed him successor\n to his father. Then the small, forsaken company of Nicene\n believers in Constantinople called him to be their pastor.\n He accepted the call in A.D. 379, and delivered here in a\n private chapel, which he designated by the significant name\n of Anastasia, his celebrated five discourses on the divinity\n of the Logos, which won for him the honourable title of\n \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. He was called thence by Theodosius the Great in\n A.D. 380 to be patriarch of the capital, and had assigned\n to him the presidency of the Synod of Constantinople in\n A.D. 381. But the malice of his enemies forced him to resign.\n He returned now to Nazianzum [Nazianzen], administered for\n several years the bishopric there, and died in A.D. 390 in\n rural retirement, without having fully realised the motto\n of his life: \u03a0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. His writings consist\n of 45 Discourses, 242 Epistles, and several poems (\u00a7 48, 5).\n After the 5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af and the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 (a\n justification of his flight from Nazianzum [Nazianzen] by\n a representation of the eminence and responsibility of the\n priesthood), the most celebrated are two philippics, \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2=the mark branded on one at\n the public pillory), _Invectiv\u00e6 in Julianum Imperatorem_,\n occasioned by Julian\u2019s attempt to deprive the Christians\n of the means of classical culture.[137]\n\n d. =Gregory of Nyssa= was the younger brother of Basil. In\n philosophical gifts and scientific culture he excelled his\n two elder friends. His theological views too were rooted\n more deeply than theirs in those of Origen. But in zeal\n in controverting Arianism he was not a whit behind them,\n and his reputation among contemporaries and posterity is\n scarcely less than theirs. Basil ordained him bishop of\n Nyssa in A.D. 371, and thus, not without resistance, took\n him away from the office of a teacher of eloquence. The\n Arians, however, drove him from his bishopric, to which he\n was restored only after the death of the Emperor Valens.\n He died in A.D. 394. He took his share in the theological\n controversies of his times and wrote against Eunomius and\n Apollinaris. His dogmatic treatises are full of profound\n and brilliant thoughts, and especially the \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2, an instruction how to win over Jews and Gentiles\n to the truth of Christianity; \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2,\n conversations between him and his sister Macrina after the\n death of their brother Basil, one of his most brilliant\n works; \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, against the fatalistic theory of\n the world of paganism; \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03bd,\n for the establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity on\n principles of reason. In his numerous exegetical writings\n he follows the allegorical method in the brilliant style of\n Origen. We also have from him some ascetical tracts, several\n sermons and 26 Epistles.\n\n \u00a7 47.5.\n\n e. =Apollinaris=, called the Younger, to distinguish him\n from his father of the same name, was a contemporary of\n Athanasius, and bishop of Laodicea. He died in A.D. 390.\n A fine classical scholar and endowed with rich poetic gifts,\n he distinguished himself as a defender of Christianity\n against the attacks of the heathen philosopher Porphyry\n (\u00a7 23, 3) and also as a brilliant controversialist against\n the Arians; but he too went astray when alongside of the\n trinitarian question he introduced those Christological\n speculations that are now known by his name (\u00a7 52, 1).\n That we have others of his writings besides the quotations\n found in the treatises of his opponents, is owing to the\n circumstance that several of them were put into circulation\n by his adherents under good orthodox names in order to get\n impressed upon the views developed therein the stamp of\n orthodoxy. The chief of these is \u1f29 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (_i.e._\n developed bit by bit) \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, which has come down to us\n under the name of Gregory Thaumaturgus (\u00a7 31, 6). Theodoret\n quotes passages from it and assigns them to Apollinaris,\n and its contents too are in harmony with this view. So\n too with the tract \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5, _De\n Incarnatione Verbi_, ascribed to Athanasius, which a scholar\n of Apollinaris, named Polemon, with undoubted accuracy\n ascribed to his teacher. That Cyril of Alexandria ascribes\n this last-named tract to Athanasius may be taken as proof of\n the readiness of the Monophysites and their precursor Cyril\n to pass off the false as genuine (\u00a7 52, 2). To Apollinaris\n belong also an Epistle to Dionysius attributed to Julius,\n bishop of Rome (\u00a7 50, 2) and a tract, attributed to the\n same, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, which were also assigned to Apollinaris by his own\n scholars. Finally, the Pseudo-Justin \u1f1c\u03ba\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 seems to be a reproduction of a treatise\n of Apollinaris\u2019 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, supposed to be lost, enlarged\n with clumsy additions and palmed off in this form under the\n venerated name of Justin Martyr.\n\n f. =Didymus the Blind= lost his sight when four years of age,\n but succeeded in making wonderful attainments in learning.\n He was for fifty years Catechist in Alexandria, and as such\n the last brilliant star in the catechetical school. He died\n in A.D. 395. An enthusiastic admirer of Origen, he also\n shared many of his eccentric views, _e.g._ Apocatastasis,\n pre-existence of the soul, etc. But also in consequence of\n the theological controversies of the times he gave to his\n theology a decidedly ecclesiastical turn. His writings were\n numerous; but only a few have been preserved. His book _De\n Spiritu S._ is still extant in a Latin translation of Jerome;\n his controversial tract against the Manich\u00e6ans is known\n only from fragments. His chief work _De S. Trinitate_, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, in 3 bks., in which he showed himself a vigorous\n defender of the Nicene Creed, was brought to light in the\n 18th century. A commentary on the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd of Origen\n now lost, was condemned at the second Council of Nic\u00e6a in\n A.D. 787.\n\n \u00a7 47.6.\n\n g. =Macarius Magnes=, bishop of Magnesia in Asia Minor about\n A.D. 403, under the title \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f22 \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, etc.,\n wrote an apology for Christianity in 5 bks., only recovered\n in A.D. 1867, which takes the form of an account of a\n disputation with a heathen philosopher. Doctrinally it has\n a strong resemblance to the works of Gregory of Nyssa. The\n material assigned to the opponent is probably taken from\n the controversial tract of Porphyry (\u00a7 23, 3).\n\n h. =Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria=, was the nephew, proteg\u00e9\n and, from A.D. 412, also the successor of Theophilus\n (\u00a7 51, 3). The zealous and violent temper of the uncle was\n not without an injurious influence upon the character of the\n nephew. At the _Synodus ad Quercum_ in A.D. 403, he voted\n for the condemnation of Chrysostom, but subsequently, on\n further consideration, he again of his own accord entered\n upon the _diptyche_ (\u00a7 59, 6) of the Alexandrian church\n the name of the disgracefully persecuted man. In order to\n revenge himself upon the Jews by whom in a popular tumult\n Christian blood had been shed, he came down upon them at\n the head of a mob, drove them out of the city and destroyed\n their houses. He also bears no small share of the odium of\n the horrible murder of the noble Hypatia (\u00a7 42, 4). He shows\n himself equally passionate and malevolent in the contest\n with the Nestorians and the Antiocheans (\u00a7 52, 3), and\n to this controversy many of his treatises, as well as\n 87 epistles, are almost entirely devoted. The most important\n of his writings is \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 (\u00a7 42, 5).\n He systematically developed in almost scholastic fashion the\n dogma of the Trinity in his _Thesaurus de S. Consubstantiali\n Trinitate_; and in a briefer and more popular form, in two\n short tracts. As a preacher he was held in so high esteem,\n that, as Gennadius relates, Greek bishops learnt his homilies\n by heart and gave them to their congregations instead of\n compositions of their own. His 30 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, _Homili\u00e6\n paschales_, delivered at the Easter festivals observed in\n Alexandria (\u00a7 56, 3), in unctuous language expatiate upon\n the burning questions of the day, mostly polemical against\n Jews, heathens, Arians and Nestorians. His commentaries\n on the books of the Old and New Testaments illustrate the\n extreme arbitrariness of the typical-allegorical method.[138]\n The treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n gives a typical exposition of the ceremonial law of Moses,\n and his \u0393\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac contain \u201cornate and elegant,\u201d _i.e._\n typical-allegorical, expositions of selected passages from\n the Pentateuch.\n\n i. =Isidore of Pelusium=, priest and abbot of a monastery\n at Pelusium in Egypt, who died about A.D. 450, was one of\n the noblest, most gifted and liberal representatives of\n monasticism of his own and of all times. A warm supporter of\n the new Alexandrian system of doctrine but also conciliatory\n and moderate in his treatment of the persons of opponents,\n while firm and decided in regard to the subject in debate,\n he most urgently entreats Cyril to moderation. His writings\n _Contra Gentiles_ and _Contra Fatum_ are lost; but his still\n extant 2,012 Epistles in 5 bks. afford a striking evidence\n of the richness of his intellect and of his culture, as\n well as of the great esteem in which he was held and of\n his far-reaching influence. His exegesis, too, which always\n inclines to a simple literal sense, is of far greater\n importance than that of the other Alexandrians.\n\n \u00a7 47.7. (=Mystics and Philosophers.=)\n\n k. =Macarius the Great or the Elder=, monk and priest in\n the Scetic desert, was exiled by the Arian Emperor Valens\n on account of his zeal for Nicene orthodoxy. He died in\n A.D. 391. From his writings, consisting of 50 Homilies, a\n number of Apophthegms, some epistles and prayers, there is\n breathed forth a deep warm mysticism with various approaches\n to Augustine\u2019s soteriological views, while other passages\n seem to convey quite a Pelagian type of doctrine.\n\n l. =Marcus Eremita=, a like-minded younger contemporary of\n the preceding, lived about A.D. 400 as an inhabitant of\n the Scetic desert. We possess of his writings only nine\n tracts of an ascetic mystical kind, the second of which,\n bearing the title \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n has secured for them a place in the Roman Index with the\n note \u201c_Caute legenda_.\u201d However even in his mysticism\n contradictory views, Augustinian and Pelagian, in regard\n to human freedom and divine grace, on predestination and\n sanctification, etc., find a place alongside one another,\n and have prominence given them according to the writer\u2019s\n humour and the requirement of his meditation or exhortation.\n\n m. =Synesius of Cyrene=,[139] subsequently bishop of Ptolemais\n in Egypt, was a disciple of the celebrated Hypatia (\u00a7 42, 4)\n and an enthusiastic admirer of Plato. He died about A.D. 420.\n A happy husband and father, in comfortable circumstances\n and devoted to the study of philosophy, he could not for a\n long time be prevailed upon to accept a bishopric. He openly\n confessed his Origenistic heterodoxy in reference to the\n resurrection doctrine, the eternity of the world, as well\n as the pre-existence of the soul. He also publicly declared\n that as bishop he would continue the marriage relation with\n his wife, and no one took offence thereat. In the episcopal\n office he distinguished himself by noble zeal and courage\n which knew no fear of man. His 10 Hymns contain echoes of\n Valentinian views (\u00a7 27, 4), and his philosophical tracts\n are only to a small extent dominated by Christian ideas. His\n 155 Epistles are more valuable as illustrating on every hand\n his noble character.\n\n n. =Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa= in Ph\u0153nicia, lived in the\n first half of the 5th century. He left behind a brilliant\n treatise on religious philosophy, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. The\n traditional doctrine of the Eastern church is unswervingly\n set forth by him; still he too finds therein a place for\n the eternity of the world, the pre-existence of the soul, a\n migration of souls (excluding, however, the brute creation),\n the unconditional freedom of the will, etc.\n\n o. =\u00c6neas of Gaza=, a disciple of the Neo-Platonist Hierocles\n and a rhetorician in Alexandria, about A.D. 437 wrote a\n dialogue directed against the Origenistic doctrines of the\n eternity of the world and the pre-existence of the soul; as\n also against the Neo-Platonic denial of the resurrection of\n the body. It bore the title: \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n \u00a7 47.8. =The Antiocheans.=\n\n a. =Eusebius of Emesa= was born at Edessa and studied in\n C\u00e6sarea and Antioch. A quiet, peaceful scholar, and one who\n detested all theological wrangling, he declined the call to\n the Alexandrian bishopric in place of the deposed Athanasius\n in A.D. 341, but accepted the obscure bishopric of Emesa. He\n was not, however, to be left here. When, on account of his\n mathematical and astronomical attainments, the people there\n suspected him of sorcery, he quitted Emesa and from that date\n till his death in A.D. 360 taught in Antioch. Of his numerous\n exegetical, dogmatical and polemical writings only a few\n fragments are extant.\n\n b. =Diodorus of Tarsus=, a scholar of the preceding, monk and\n presbyter at Antioch, was afterwards bishop of Tarsus in\n Cilicia, and died in A.D. 394. Only a few fragments of his\n numerous writings survive. As an exegete he concerned himself\n with the plain grammatico-historical sense and contested\n the Alexandrian mode of interpretation in the treatise: \u03a4\u03af\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. By \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 he understands\n insight into the relations transcending the bare literal\n sense but yet essentially present in it as the ideal. By his\n polemic against Apollinaris (\u00a7 52, 1), he imprinted upon the\n Antiochean school its specific dogmatic character (\u00a7 52, 2),\n in consequence of which he was at a later period regarded as\n the original founder of the Nestorian party.\n\n c. His scholar again was =John of Antioch=, whose proper name\n afterwards almost disappeared before the honourable title of\n =Chrysostom=. Educated by his early widowed mother Arethusa\n with the greatest care, he attended the rhetoric school\n of Libanius and started with great success as an advocate\n in Antioch. But after receiving baptism he abandoned his\n practice and became a monk. He was made deacon in A.D. 380\n and presbyter in A.D. 386 in his native city. His brilliant\n eloquence raised him at last in A.D. 398 to the patriarchal\n chair at Constantinople (\u00a7 51, 3). He died in exile in\n A.D. 407. Next to Athanasius and the three Cappadocians\n he is one of the most talented of the Eastern fathers, the\n only one of the Antiochean school whose orthodoxy has never\n been questioned. In his exegesis he follows the fundamental\n principles of the Antiochean school. He wrote commentaries\n on Isaiah (down to chap. viii. 10) and on Galatians. Besides\n these his 650 Expository Homilies on all the Biblical books\n and particular sections cover almost the whole of the Old\n and New Testaments. Among his other dogmatical, polemical\n and hortatory church addresses the most celebrated are the\n 21 _De Statuis ad populum Antiochen_, delivered in A.D. 387.\n (The people of Antioch, roused on account of the exorbitant\n tax demanded of them, had broken down the statues of\n Theodosius I.) The _Demonstratio c. Julianum et Gentiles\n quod Christus sit Deus_ and the _Liber in S. Babylam\n c. Jud\u00e6os et Gentiles_ are apologetical treatises. Of\n his ethico-ascetic writings, in which he eagerly commends\n virginity and asceticism, by far the most celebrated is\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, _De Sacerdotis_, in 4 bks., in the form of\n a dialogue with his Cappadocian friend Basil (the Great)\n who in A.D. 370 had felt compelled to accept the bishopric\n of C\u00e6sarea after Chrysostom had escaped this honour by\n flight.[140]\n\n \u00a7 47.9.\n\n d. =Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia= in Cilicia, was the\n son of respectable parents in Antioch, the friend and\n fellow-student of Chrysostom, first under Libanius, then\n under Diodorus. He died in A.D. 429. It was he who gave\n full development and consistent expression to the essential\n dogmatic and hermeneutical principles of the Antiochean\n theology. For this reason he was far more suspected of\n heresy by his Alexandrian opponents than even his teacher\n Diodorus, and they finally obtained their desire by the\n formal condemnation of his person and writings at the fifth\n \u0153cumenical Synod in A.D. 553 (\u00a7 52, 6). Leontius Byzantinus\n formulated his exegetical offence by saying that in his\n exposition he treated the Holy Scriptures precisely as\n ordinary human writings, especially that he interpreted the\n Song of Songs as a love poem, _libidinose pro sua et mente\n et lingua meretricia_, explained the Psalms after the\n manner of the Jews till he emptied them dry of all Messianic\n contents, _Judaice ad Zorobabelem et Ezechiam retulit_,\n denied the genuineness of the titles of the Psalms, rejected\n the canonical authority of Job, the Chronicles and Ezra\n as well as James and other Catholic Epistles, etc. In\n every respect Theodore was one of the ablest exegetes of the\n ancient church and the Syrian church has rightly celebrated\n him as the _\u201cInterpres\u201d par excellence_. He set forth his\n hermeneutical principles in the treatise: _De Allegoria\n et Historia_. Of his exegetical writings we have still his\n Comm. on the Minor Prophets, on Romans, fragments of those\n on other parts of the New Testament. Latin translations of\n his Comm. on the Minor Epp. of Paul, with the corresponding\n Greek fragments, are edited by Swete, 2 vols., Cambr.,\n 1880, 1882. An introduction to Biblical Theology collected\n from Theodore\u2019s writings and reproduced in a Latin form by\n Junilius Africanus (\u00a7 48, 1) is still extant. His dogmatic,\n polemical and apologetical works on the Incarnation\n and Original Sin (\u00a7 53, 4), against Eunomius (\u00a7 50, 3),\n Apollinaris (\u00a7 52, 1) and the Emperor Julian (\u00a7 42, 5),\n are now known only from a few fragmentary quotations.\n\n e. =Polychronius, bishop of Apamea=, was Theodore\u2019s brother and\n quite his equal in exegetical acuteness and productivity,\n while he excelled him in his knowledge of the Hebrew and\n Syriac. Tolerably complete scholia by him on Ezekiel, Daniel\n and Job have been preserved in the Greek Caten\u00e6 (\u00a7 48, 1).\n In regard to Daniel he maintains firmly its historical\n character and understands chap. vii. of Antiochus Epiphanes.\n\n f. =Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus= in Syria, was Theodore\u2019s ablest\n disciple, the most versatile scholar and most productive\n writer of his age, an original investigator and a diligent\n pastor, an upright and noble character and a man who kept\n the just mean amid the extreme tendencies of his times,--yet\n even he could not escape the suspicion of heresy (\u00a7 52, 3,\n 4, 6). He died in A.D. 457. As an exegete he followed the\n course of grammatico-historical exposition marked out by\n his Antiochean predecessors, but avoided the rationalistic\n tendencies of his teacher. He commented on most of the\n historical books of the Old Testament, on the Prophets, the\n Song, which he understood allegorically of the church as\n the bride of Christ, and on the Pauline Epistles. Among his\n historical works the first place belongs to his continuation\n of the history of Eusebius (\u00a7 5, 1). His \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1,\n _Hist. religiosa_, gives a glowing description of the\n lives of 33 celebrated ascetics of both sexes. Of higher\n value is the \u0391\u1f31\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae, _H\u00e6reticarum\n fabularum compendium_. His \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n _De Curandis Gr\u00e6corum Affectionibus_, is an apologetical\n treatise. His seven Dialogues _De s. Trinitate_ are polemics\n against the Macedonians and Apollinarians. The _Reprehensio_\n xii. _Anathematismorum_ is directed against Cyril of\n Alexandria; and the \u1f18\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 against\n monophysitism as a heresy compounded of many heresies\n (\u00a7 52, 4). Besides these we have from him 179 Epistles.[141]\n\n \u00a7 47.10. =Other Teachers of the Greek Church during the 4th and\n 5th Centuries.=\n\n a. =Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem=, from A.D. 351 to A.D. 386,\n in the Arian controversy took the side of the conciliatory\n semi-Arians and thus came into collision with his imperious\n and decidedly Arian metropolitan Acacius of C\u00e6sarea. During\n a famine he sold the church furniture for distribution\n among the needy, and was for this deposed by Acacius. Under\n Julian he ventured to return, but under Valens he was again\n driven out and found himself exposed to the persecution\n of the Arians, which was all the more violent because in\n the meantime he had assumed a more decided attitude toward\n Nicene orthodoxy. At the death of Valens in A.D. 378 he\n returned and became reconciled to the victorious maintainers\n of the Homoousion by fully accepting the doctrine at the\n Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 (\u00a7 50, 4). We still\n have his 23 Catechetical Lectures delivered in A.D. 348 by\n him as presbyter to the baptized at Jerusalem. The first\n 18 are entitled: \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _Ad Competentes_\n (\u00a7 35, 1); the last five: \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, _Catecheses\n Mystagogic\u00e6_, on Baptism, Anointing and the Lord\u2019s Supper.\n In their present form they afford but faint evidence of their\n author having surmounted the semi-Arian standpoint.[142]\n\n b. =Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis= or Constantia in Cyprus, was\n born of Jewish parents in the Palestinian village Besanduce\n and was baptized in his sixteenth year. His pious and\n noble, but narrow and one-sided character was formed by his\n education under the monks. He completed his ascetic training\n by several years residence among the monks of the Scetic\n desert, then founded a monastery in his native place over\n which he presided for thirty years until in A.D. 367 he was\n raised to the metropolitan\u2019s chair at Salamis, where he died\n in A.D. 403. In the discharge of his episcopal duties he\n was a miracle of faithfulness and zeal, specially active and\n self-denying in his care of the poor. But in the forefront\n of all his thinking and acting there ever stood his glowing\n zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The very soul of honour,\n truth-loving and courageous, but credulous, positive, with\n little knowledge of the world and human nature, and hence\n not capable of penetrating to the bottom of complicated\n affairs, he was all his days misused as a tool of the\n intriguing Alexandrian Theophilus in the Origenistic\n controversies (\u00a7 51, 3). He was all the more easily won\n to this from the fact that he had brought with him from\n the Scetic desert the conviction that Origen was the prime\n mover in the Arian and all other heresies. In spite of all\n defects in form and contents his writings have proved most\n serviceable for the history of the churches and heresies\n of the first four centuries. The diligence and honourable\n intention of his research in some measure compensate for\n the bad taste and illogical character of his exposition and\n for his narrow, one-sided and uncritical views. His \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b2\u03ce\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd lxxx. is a full and learned\n though confused and uncritical work, in which the idea\n of heresy is so loosely defined that even the Samaritans,\n Pharisees, Essenes, etc., find a place in it. He himself\n composed an abridgment of it under the title: \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n His \u1f08\u03b3\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 is an exposition of the Catholic faith, which\n during the tumults of the Arian controversy should serve\n as an anchor of salvation to the Christians. The book \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, _De mensuris et ponderibus_, answers to\n this title only in the last chapter, the 24th; the preceding\n chapters treat of the Canon and translations of the Old\n Testament. There are two old codices in the British Museum\n which have in addition, in a Syriac translation, 37 chapters\n on biblical weights and measures and 19 on the biblical\n science of the heaven and the earth. The tract \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd (on the high-priest\u2019s breastplate) is of little\n consequence.\n\n c. =Palladius=, born in Galatia, retired at an early age into\n the Nitrian desert, but lived afterwards in Palestine, where\n he was accused of favouring the heresy of Origen (\u00a7 51, 2).\n Chrysostom consecrated him bishop of Hellenopolis in\n Bithynia. Latterly he administered a small bishopric in\n Galatia, where he died before A.D. 431. His chief writing\n is the \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039b\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, _Hist. Lausiaca_, a historical\n romance on the hermit and monkish life of his times which is\n dedicated to an eminent statesman called Lausus.\n\n d. =Nilus=, sprung from a prominent family in Constantinople,\n retired with his son Theodulus to the recluses of Mount\n Sinai. By a murderous onslaught of the Saracens his beloved\n son was snatched away from him, but an Arabian bishop bought\n him and ordained both father and son as priests. He died\n about A.D. 450. In his ascetical writings and specially\n in the 4 books of his Epistles, about 1,000 in number,\n he shows himself to be of like mind and character to his\n companion Isidore, but with a deeper knowledge and more\n sober conception of Holy Scripture. He himself describes\n the capture of his son in _Narrationes de c\u00e6de monachorum\n et captivitate Theoduli_.\n\n \u00a7 47.11. =Greek Church Fathers of the 6th and 7th Centuries.=\n\n a. =Johannes Philoponus= was in the first half of the 6th\n century teacher of grammar at Alexandria, and belonged to\n the sect of tritheistic monophysites in that place (\u00a7 52, 7).\n Although trained in the Neo-Platonic school, he subsequently\n applied himself enthusiastically to the Aristotelian\n philosophy, composed many commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s\n writings, and was the first to apply the Aristotelian\n categories to Christian theology. Notwithstanding many\n heretical tendencies in his theology, among which is his\n statement in a lost work, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, that for the\n saved at the last day entirely new bodies and an entirely\n new world will be created, his philosophical writings\n powerfully impelled the medi\u00e6val Greek Church to the study\n of philosophy. His chief doctrinal treatise \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u1f11\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 is known only from quotations in Leontius Byzantinus\n and Johannes Damascenus. Of his other writings the most\n important was the controversial treatise _Contra Procli\n pro \u00e6ternitate mundi argumenta_ in 18 bks. The 7 bks. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 treat of the six days\u2019 work of creation with\n great display of philosophical acuteness and acquaintance\n with natural history.\n\n b. =Dionysius the Areopagite.= Under this name (Acts xvii. 34)\n an unknown writer, only a little earlier than the previously\n named, published writings of a decidedly mystico-theosophical\n kind. The first mention of them is at a conference of\n the monophysite Severians (\u00a7 52, 7) with the Catholics\n at Constantinople in A.D. 533, where the former referred\n to them, while the other side denied their authenticity.\n Subsequently, however, they were universally received as\n genuine, not only in the East but also in the West. They\n comprise four tracts: 1. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03c5;\n 2. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2; 3. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd; 4. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; and also 12 Epp.\n to Apostolic men. Their author was a Monophysite-Christian\n Neo-Platonist, who transferred the secret arts of the\n Dionysian mysteries to Christian worship, monasticism,\n hierarchy and church doctrines. He distinguished a \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, which consisted in symbolic representations,\n from a \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae, which surmounted the symbolical\n shell and rose to the perception of the pure idea by means\n of ecstasy. Side by side with the revealed doctrine of Holy\n Scripture he sets a secret doctrine, the knowledge of which\n is reached only by initiation. The primal mystagogue, who\n like the sun enlightens all spirits, is the divine hierarch\n Christ, and the primitive type of all earthly order in the\n heavenly hierarchy as represented in the courses of angels\n and glorified spirits. There is constant intercourse between\n the earthly and heavenly hierarchies by means of Christ the\n highest hierarch incarnate. The purpose of this intercourse\n is the drawing out of the \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of man by means of\n priestly consecration and the mysteries (_i.e._ the\n Sacraments of which he reckons six, \u00a7 58). The \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n has its foundation in baptism as consecration to the\n divine birth, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and its completion in\n consecration of the dead, the anointing of the body. The\n historical Christ with His redeeming life, sufferings and\n death is at no time the subject of the Areopagite mysticism.\n It is always concerned with the heavenly Christ, not about\n the reconciliation but only about the mystical living\n fellowship of God and man, about the immediate vision and\n enjoyment of God\u2019s glory. The monophysite standpoint of the\n author betrays itself in his tendency to think of the human\n nature of Christ as absorbed by the divine. His Christian\n Neo-Platonism appears in his fantastic speculations about\n the nature of God, the orders of angels and spirits, etc.;\n while his antagonism to the pagan Neo-Platonism is seen\n in his regarding the \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 not as a natural power proper\n to and dwelling in man, but as a supernatural power made\n possible by the \u1f10\u03bd\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of Christ, but still more\n expressly by his emphatic assertion over against the\n Neo-Platonic depreciation of the body, of the resurrection\n of the flesh as the completion of the \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. Hence also\n the importance which he attaches to the sacrament of the\n consecration of the dead.[143]\n\n \u00a7 47.12.\n\n c. =Leontius Byzantinus=, at first an advocate at\n Constantinople, subsequently a monk at Jerusalem, wrote\n about the end of the 6th century controversial tracts against\n Nestorians, Monophysites and Apollinarians, and in his\n _Scholia s. Liber de sectis_ presented a historico-polemical\n summary of all heresies up to that time.\n\n d. =Maximus Confessor=, the scion of a well-known family of\n Constantinople, was for a long time private secretary to\n the Emperor Heraclius, but retired about A.D. 630 from love\n of a contemplative life into a monastery at Chrysopolis\n near Constantinople, where he was soon raised to the rank of\n abbot. The further details of his story are given in \u00a7 52, 8.\n He died in A.D. 662. In decision of character, fidelity\n to his convictions and courage as a confessor during\n the Monothelete controversy, he stands out among his\n characterless countrymen and contemporaries as a rock in the\n ocean. In scientific endowments and comprehensive learning,\n in depth and wealth of thought there is none like him,\n although even in him the weakness of the age, especially\n slavish submission to authority, is quite apparent. His\n scientific theology is built up mainly upon the three great\n Cappadocians, among whom the speculative Nyssa has most\n influence over him. His dialectic acuteness and subtlety he\n derived from the study of Aristotle, while his imaginative\n nature and the intensity of his emotional life which\n predestined him to be a mystic, found abundant nourishment\n and satisfaction in the writings of Dionysius. He was saved,\n however, by the manysidedness of his mind and the soundness\n of his whole life\u2019s tendencies, from many eccentricities of\n the Areopagite mysticism, so that in his humility he thought\n that his soul was not pure enough to be able fully to\n penetrate and comprehend these mysteries. His numerous\n writings, of which more than fifty are extant, were in\n great part occasioned by the struggle against Monophysitism\n and Monotheletism. His mystico-ascetic writings are\n also important, such as his \u039c\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03af\u03b1, treatises on the\n symbolico-mystic meaning of the acts of church worship, his\n epistles and several beautiful hymns. He also wrote scholia\n and commentaries on the works of the Areopagite. He is\n weakest in exegesis, where the most wilful allegorizing\n prevails.\n\n e. =Johannes Climacus=, abbot of the monastery at Sinai, died\n at an extremely old age in A.D. 606. Under the title \u039a\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03be\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5, _Heavenly Guide_, he composed a directory\n toward perfection in the Christian life in thirty steps,\n which became a favourite reading book of pious monks.\n\n f. =Johannes Moschus= was a monk in a cloister at Jerusalem.\n Accompanying his friend Sophronius, afterwards patriarch of\n Jerusalem (\u00a7 52, 8), he travelled through Egypt and the East,\n visiting all the pious monks and clerics. At last he reached\n Rome, where he wrote an account in his \u039b\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2, _Pratum Spirituale_, of the edifying discourses\n which he had had with famous monks during his travels, and\n soon thereafter, in A.D. 619, he died.\n\n g. =Anastasius Sinaita=, called the new Moses, because like\n Moses he is said to have seen God, was priest and dweller\n on Mount Sinai at the end of the 7th century. His chief work\n \u1f49\u03b4\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, _Vi\u00e6 du\u00e6_, is directed against the _Acephalians_\n (\u00a7 52, 5) and his _Contemplationes_ preserved only in a\n Latin translation give an allegorico-mystical exposition of\n the Hex\u00e6meron.\n\n \u00a7 47.13. =Syrian Church Fathers.=[144]\n\n a. =Jacob of Nisibis=, as bishop of his native city and founder\n of the theological school there, performed most important\n services to the national Syrian Church. At the Council of\n Nic\u00e6a in A.D. 325 he distinguished himself by vindicating\n the homo\u00fcsion and also subsequently we find him sometimes in\n the front rank of the champions of Nicene orthodoxy. Of his\n writings none are known to us. He died in A.D. 338.\n\n b. =Aphraates= was celebrated in his time as a Persian sage.\n As bishop of St. Matthew near Mosul he adopted the Christian\n name of =Mar Jacob=, and dedicated his 23 Homilies, which\n are rather instructions or treatises, to a certain Gregory.\n He wrote them between A.D. 336 and A.D. 345. The _Sermones_\n ascribed even by Gennadius at the end of the 5th century\n to Nisibis were composed by Aphraates. Although he lived\n when the Arian controversy was at its height, there is no\n reference to it in his treatises, which may be explained by\n his geographical isolation. The polemic against the Jews to\n which seven tracts are devoted _ex professo_, was one which\n specially interested him.\n\n c. =Ephraim the Syrian=,[145] called, on account of his\n importance in the Syrian Church, _Propheta Syrorum_, was\n born at Nisibis and was called by the bishop Jacob to\n be teacher of the school founded there by him. When the\n Persians under Sapor in A.D. 350 plundered the city and\n destroyed the school, Ephraim retired to Edessa, founded a\n school there, administered the office of deacon, and died\n at a great age in A.D. 378. As an exegete he indulged to his\n heart\u2019s content in typology, but in other respects mostly\n followed the grammatico-historical method with a constant\n endeavour after what was edifying. Many of his writings have\n been lost. Those remaining partly in the Syriac original,\n partly in Greek and Latin translations, have been collected\n by the brothers Assemani. They comprise Commentaries on\n almost the whole Bible, Homilies and Discourses in metrical\n form on a variety of themes, of these 56 are against\n heretics (Gnostics, Manich\u00e6ans, Eunomians, Audians, etc.),\n and Hymns properly so called, especially funeral Odes.\n\n d. =Ibas, bishop of Edessa=, at first teacher in the high\n school there, translated the writings of Diodorus and\n Theodore into Syriac, and thus brought down upon himself\n the charge of being a Nestorian. Having been repeatedly\n drawn into discussion, and being naturally outspoken, he was\n excommunicated and deposed at the Robber Synod of Ephesus in\n A.D. 449, but his orthodoxy was acknowledged by the Council\n of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, after he had pronounced anathema\n upon Nestorius. He died in A.D. 457. An epistle, in which\n he gives an account of these proceedings to Bishop Meris of\n Hardashir in Persia, led to a renewal of his condemnation\n before the fifth \u0153cumenical Council at Constantinople in\n A.D. 553 (\u00a7 52, 4, 6).\n\n e. =Jacob, bishop of Edessa=, a monophysite, is the\n most important and manysided among the later Syrians,\n distinguished as theologian, historian, grammarian and\n translator of the Greek fathers. He died in A.D. 708. Of his\n works still extant in MS.--scholia on the Bible, liturgical\n works and treatises on church law, revision of the Syrian\n Old Testament according to the LXX., continuation of the\n Eusebian Chronicle, etc.--only a few have been printed.\n\n\n\n\n 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT TEACHERS OF THE WESTERN CHURCH.\n\n \u00a7 47.14.\n\n f. =During the Period of the Arian Controversy.=\n\n a. =Jul. Firmicus Maternus.= Under this name we have a\n treatise _De errore profanarum religionum_, addressed to\n the sons of Constantine the Great, in which the writer\n combats heathenism upon the Euhemerist theory (which\n traces the worship of the heathen gods from the deifying\n of famous ancestors), but besides reclaims many myths as\n corruptions of the biblical history, and shows that the\n violent overthrow of all idolatry is the sacred duty of\n a Christian ruler from God\u2019s command to Joshua to destroy\n utterly the Canaanites.\n\n b. =Lucifer of Cal\u0103ris [Calaris]= in Sardinia, was a\n violent, determined, and stubborn zealot for the Nicene\n doctrine, whose excessive severity against the penitent\n Arians and semi-Arians drove him into schism (\u00a7 50, 8).\n He died in A.D. 371. In his tract, _Ad Constantium\n Augustum pro S. Athansio_, lb. ii., written in A.D. 360,\n he upbraids the emperor with his faults so bitterly as\n to describe him as a reckless apostate, antichrist, and\n Satan. He boldly acknowledged the authorship and, in\n prospect of a death sentence, wrote in A.D. 361 his\n consolatory treatise, _Moriendum esse pro filio Dei_.\n The early death of the emperor, however, permitted his\n return from exile (\u00a7 50, 2, 4), where he had written\n _De regibus apostaticis_ and _De non conveniendo cum\n h\u00e6reticis_.\n\n c. =Marius Victorinus= from Africa, often confounded with\n the martyr of the same name (\u00a7 31, 12), was converted\n to Christianity when advanced in life, about A.D. 360,\n while occupying a distinguished position as a heathen\n rhetorician in Rome. He gave proof of his zeal as a\n neophyte by the composition of controversial treatises\n against the Manich\u00e6ans, _Ad Justinum Manich\u00e6um_, and\n against the Arians, _Lb. iv. adv. Arium, De generatione\n divina ad Candidum, De_ \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u1ff3 _recipiendo_. In his\n treatise, _De verbis scriptur\u00e6_, Gen. i. 5, he shows\n that the creative days began not with the evening, but\n with the morning. He composed three hymns _de Trinitate_,\n and an epic poem on the seven brothers, the Maccabees.\n\n d. =Hilary of Poitiers=--_Hilarius Pictavienses_--styled\n the Athanasius of the West, and made _doctor ecclesi\u00e6_\n by Pius IX. in A.D. 1851, was sprung from a noble pagan\n family of Poitiers (Pictavium). With wife and daughter\n he embraced Christianity, and was soon thereafter,\n about A.D. 350, made bishop of his native city. In\n A.D. 356, however, as a zealous opponent of Arianism,\n he was banished to Phrygia, from which he returned in\n A.D. 360. Two years later he travelled to Milan, in\n order if possible to win from his error the bishop of\n that place, Auxentius, a zealous Arian. That bishop,\n however, obtained an imperial edict which obliged him\n instantly to withdraw. He died in A.D. 366. The study\n of Origen seems to have had a decided influence upon\n his theological development. His strength lay in the\n speculative treatment of the groundworks of doctrine. At\n the same time he is the first exegete proper among the\n Western fathers writing the Latin language. He follows\n exactly the allegorical method of the Alexandrians. His\n works embrace commentaries on the Psalms and the Gospel\n of Matthew, several polemical lectures (\u00a7 50, 6), and\n his speculative dogmatic masterpiece _de Trinitate_\n in xii. books.\n\n e. =Zeno, bishop of Verona=, who died about A.D. 380,\n left behind ninety-three _Sermones_ which, in beautiful\n language and spirited style, treat of various subjects\n connected with faith and morals, combat paganism and\n Arianism, and eagerly recommend virginity and monasticism.\n\n f. =Philaster=, bishop of Brescia, contemporary of Zeno, in\n his book _De h\u00e6resibus_, described in harsh and obscure\n language, in an uncritical fashion and with an extremely\n loose application of the word heresy, 28 pre-Christian\n and 128 post-Christian systems of error.\n\n g. =Martin of Tours=,[146] son of a soldier, had before\n baptism, but after his heart had been filled with the\n love of Christ, entered the Roman cavalry. Once, legend\n relates, he parted his military cloak into two pieces in\n order to shield a naked beggar from the cold, and on the\n following night the Lord Jesus appeared to him clothed in\n this very cloak. In his eighteenth year he was baptized,\n and for some years thereafter attached himself to Hilary\n of Poitiers, and then went to his parents in Pannonia.\n He did not succeed in converting his father, but he\n was successful with his mother and many of the people.\n Scourged and driven away by the Arian party which there\n prevailed, he turned to Milan where, however, he got\n just as little welcome from the Arian bishop Auxentius.\n He then lived some years on the island of Gallinaria,\n near Genoa. When Hilary returned from banishment to\n Pictavium, he followed him there, and founded in the\n neighbourhood a monastery, the earliest in Gaul. He was\n guilefully decoyed to Tours, and forced to mount the\n episcopal chair there in A.D. 375. He converted whole\n crowds of heathen peasants, and, according to the\n legend given by Sulpicius Severus and Gregory of Tours\n (\u00a7 90, 2), wrought miracle after miracle. But he was\n himself with his holy zeal, his activity in doing good,\n his undoubted power over men\u2019s hearts, and a countenance\n before which even the emperor quailed (\u00a7 54, 2), the\n greatest and the most credible miracle. He died about\n A.D. 400 in the monastery of Marmontiers [Marmoutiers],\n which he had founded out from Tours. His tomb was\n one of the most frequented places of pilgrimage. He\n was wholly without scholarly culture, but the force\n of intellect with which he was endowed lent him a\n commanding eloquence. The _Confessio de s. Trinitate_\n attributed to him is not genuine.\n\n \u00a7 47.15.\n\n g. =Ambrose, bishop of Milan=, sprung from a prominent Roman\n family, was governor of the province of Milan. After the\n death of the Arian Auxentius in A.D. 374 violent quarrels\n broke out over the choice of a successor. Then a child is\n said to have cried from the midst of the crowd \u201cAmbrose is\n bishop,\u201d and all the people, Arians as well as Catholics,\n agreed. All objection was vain. Up to this time only a\n catechumen, he received baptism, distributed his property\n among the poor, and eight days after mounted the episcopal\n chair. His new office he administered with truly apostolic\n zeal, a father of the poor, a protector of all oppressed,\n an unweariedly active pastor, a powerful opponent of heresy\n and heathenism. His eloquence, which had won him a high\n reputation in the forum, was yet more conspicuous in the\n service of the church. To ransom the prisoners he spared not\n even the furniture of the church. To a peculiarly winning\n friendliness and gentleness he added great strength of\n character, which prevented him being checked in his course\n by any respect of persons, or by any threatening and danger.\n He so decidedly opposed the intrigues of the Arian Empress\n Justina, during the minority of her son Valentinian II.,\n that she, powerless to execute her wrath, was obliged to\n desist from her endeavours (\u00a7 50, 4). With Theodosius the\n Great he stood in the highest esteem. When the passionate\n emperor had ordered a fearful massacre without distinction of\n rank, age and sex, without enquiry as to guilt or innocence,\n of the inhabitants of Thessalonica on account of a tumult\n in which a general and several officers had been murdered,\n Ambrose wrote him a letter with an earnest call to repentance,\n and threatened him with exclusion from the communion of the\n church and its services. The emperor, already repenting of\n his hastiness, took patiently the rebuke administered, but\n did nothing to atone for his crime. Some time after he went\n as usual to church, but Ambrose met him at the entrance of\n the house of God and refused him admission. For eight months\n the emperor refrained from communion; then he applied for\n absolution, which was granted him, after he had publicly done\n penance before the congregation and promised never in future\n to carry out a death sentence within thirty days of its being\n pronounced. Theodosius afterwards declared that Ambrose was\n the only one truly deserving the name of a bishop. Ambrose\n was also a zealous promoter of monasticism in the West.\n In his sermons he so powerfully recommended virginity\n that many families forbade their daughters attending them.\n He deserves special credit for his contributions to the\n liturgical services (_Officium Ambrosianum_, _Cantus Ambr._,\n Hymn Composition, \u00a7 59, 4-6). On all dogmatic questions he\n strongly favoured the realism of the North African school,\n while in exegesis he did not surmount the allegorical\n method of the Alexandrians. To the department of morals\n and ascetics belong the 3 bks. _De Officiis Ministrorum_,\n a Christian construction of Cicero\u2019s celebrated work and\n the most important of all Ambrose\u2019s writings; also several\n treatises in recommendation of virginity. The book _De\n Mysteriis_ explains baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper to the\n neophytes. The 5 bks. _De fide_, the 3 bks. _De Spiritu S._\n and the tract _De incarnat\u00eeonis sacramento_, treat of the\n fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith in opposition\n to Arians, Sabellians, Apollinarians, etc. These are\n somewhat dependent upon the Greeks, especially Athanasius,\n Didymus and Basil. His expositions of Old Testament histories\n (_Hexa\u00ebmeron_, _De Paradiso_, _De Cain et Abel_, _De No\u00eb\n et arca_, _De Abraham_, _De Jacob et anima_, etc.) are\n allegorical and typical in the highest degree. More important\n are his _Sermones_ and 92 Epistles. But all his writings are\n distinguished by their noble, powerful and popular eloquence.\n\n h. =Ambrosiaster= is the name given to an unknown writer\n whose allegorizing Commentary on Paul\u2019s Epistles was long\n attributed to Ambrose. This work, highly popular on account\n of its pregnant brevity, was perhaps the joint work of\n several writers. In its earliest portions it belongs to\n the age of Damasus, bishop of Rome, who died in A.D. 384,\n who is named as a contemporary. Augustine names a Hilary,\n not otherwise known, as author of a passage quoted from it.\n\n i. =Pacianus=,[147] bishop of Barcelona, who died about\n A.D. 390, wrote in a clear style and correct Latinity three\n Epistles against the Novatians, from the first of which,\n _De Catholico nomine_, is borrowed the beautiful saying:\n _Christianus mihi nomen est, Catholicus cognomen_. He also\n wrote a _Liber exhortatorius ad p\u0153nitentiam_ and a _Sermo\n de baptismo_.\n\n \u00a7 47.16. =During the Period of Origenistic Controversy.=\n\n a. =Jerome=[148]--_Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus_--of Stridon\n in Dalmatia, received his classical training under the\n grammarian Donatus at Rome. In A.D. 360 he was baptized by\n bishop Liberius, but afterwards fell into sensual excesses\n which he atoned for by penitential pilgrimages to the\n catacombs. During a journey through Gaul and the provinces\n of the Rhine and Moselle he seems to have formed the fixed\n resolve to devote himself to theology and an ascetic life.\n Then for more than a year he stayed at Aquileia, A.D. 372,\n where he formed an intimate friendship with Rufinus. He next\n undertakes a journey to the East. At Antioch in a vision,\n during a violent fever, placed before the throne of the\n judge of all, having answered the question Who art thou? by\n the confession that he was a Christian, he heard the words\n distinctly uttered: Thou liest! thou art a Ciceronian and no\n Christian! He then sentenced himself to severe castigation\n and promised with an oath to give up the reading of the\n heathen classics which he had so much enjoyed. He afterwards\n indeed excused himself from the fulfilment of this twofold\n obligation; but this had sealed his devotion to an ascetic\n life, and the desert of Chalcis, the Syrian Thebaid, became\n for him during many years the school of ascetic discipline.\n Worn out with privations, penances and sensual temptations\n he returned in A.D. 379 to Antioch, where he was ordained\n presbyter but without any official district being assigned.\n Urged by Gregory of Nazianzum [Nazianzen], he next spent\n several years in Constantinople. From A.D. 382 to A.D. 385\n he again lived in Rome, where bishop Damasus honoured him\n with his implicit confidence. This aroused against him the\n envy and enmity of many among the Roman clergy, while at\n the same time his zeal for the spread of monasticism and\n virginity, as well as his ascetic influence with women, drew\n upon him the hatred of many prominent families (\u00a7 44, 4). On\n the death of his episcopal patron in A.D. 384 his position\n in Rome thus became untenable. He now returned to the East,\n visited all the holy places in Palestine, and also made\n an excursion to Alexandria where he stayed for four weeks\n in the school of the blind Didymus. He then settled down at\n Bethlehem, founded there with the means of his Roman lady\n friends an establishment for monks, over which he presided\n till his death in A.D. 420; and an establishment for\n nuns over which St. Paula presided, who with her daughter\n Eustochium had accompanied him from Rome. As to his share\n in the Origenistic controversies into which he allowed\n himself to be drawn, see \u00a7 51, 2. His character was not\n without defects: vanity, ambition, jealousy, passionateness,\n impatience and intense bitterness in debate, are only all\n too apparent in his life. But where these, as well as his\n scrupulous anxiety for the maintaining of a reputation\n for unwavering orthodoxy and by zeal for monasticism\n and asceticism, did not stand in the way, we often find\n in him an unexpected clearness and liberality of view.\n Comp. \u00a7 17, 6; 57, 6; 59, 1; 61, 1. To the instructions\n of the Jew Bar Hanina he was indebted for his knowledge\n of Hebrew and Chaldee. The greatest and most enduring\n service was rendered to the study of holy scripture by his\n pioneer labours in this direction. He is at his weakest\n in his dogmatic works, which mostly are disfigured by\n immoderately passionate polemic. In exegesis he represents\n the grammatico-historical method, but nevertheless\n frequently falls back again into allegorico-mystical\n explanations. His style is pure, flowing and elegant, but\n in polemic often reckless and coarse even to vulgarity. In\n the department of exegesis the first place belongs to his\n translation of the bible (\u00a7 59, 1). We have also a number\n of Commentaries--on Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah,\n Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets, Matthew, Galatians,\n Ephesians, Philippians and Philemon. His _Onomasticon s. de\n situ et nominibus locorum Hebr._ is a Latin reproduction of\n the \u03a4\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac of Eusebius. In the department of dogmatics we\n have polemics against Lucifer of Calaris (\u00a7 50, 3), against\n Helvidius, Jovinian and Vigilantius (\u00a7 63, 2), against John\n of Jerusalem (\u00a7 51, 2) and in several treatises against\n Rufinus, and finally against the Pelagians (\u00a7 53, 4). In\n the department of history we have his Latin adaptation and\n continuation of the second part of the Eusebian Chronicle,\n his _Catalogus Scriptorum ecclest. s. de viris illustr._,\n which tells in anecdotal form about the lives and writings\n of biblical and ecclesiastical writers, 135 in number,\n from Peter down to himself, with the avowed purpose of\n proving the falseness of the reproach that only ignorant\n and uncultured men had embraced Christianity. It was\n afterwards continued by the Gaul =Gennadius= of Marseilles\n down to the end of the fifth century. Finally, the romancing\n legendary sketches of the lives of the famous monks Paul of\n Thebes (\u00a7 39, 4), Hilarion (\u00a7 44, 3) and Malchus, were added.\n His 150 Epistles are extremely important for the church\n history of his times. Of his translations of the Greek\n fathers only those of Didymus, _De Spiritu S._ and that\n of 70 _Homilies_ of Origen, are now extant.\n\n \u00a7 47.17.\n\n b. =Tyrannius Rufinus= of Aquileia after receiving baptism\n lived for a long time in monastic retirement. His enthusiasm\n for monasticism and asceticism led him in A.D. 373 to Egypt.\n At Alexandria he spent several years in intercourse with\n Didymus. He contracted there that enthusiastic admiration\n of Origen which made his after life so full of debate and\n strife. He next went in A.D. 379 to Jerusalem, where bishop\n John ordained him presbyter. Here he found Jerome, with whom\n he had become acquainted at Aquileia, and the two friends\n were brought more closely together from their mutual love for\n Origen, although afterwards this was to prove the occasion of\n the most bitter enmity (\u00a7 51, 2). About A.D. 397 he returned\n to Italy. He died in A.D. 410. His literary activity was\n mainly directed to the transplanting of the writings of\n Greek fathers to Latin soil. To his zeal in this direction\n we owe the preservation of Origen\u2019s most important work \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd, _De principiis_, and of no fewer than 124 Homilies.\n The former, indeed, has been in many places altered in an\n arbitrary manner. He also translated several Homilies of\n Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, Pamphilus\u2019 Apology for Origen,\n the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (\u00a7 28, 3), etc. There\n are extant of his own works: the Continuation of his Latin\n reproduction of the Church History of Eusebius, down to\n A.D. 388, the romancing _Historia eremitica s. Vit\u00e6 Patrum_,\n biographies of 33 saints of the Nitrian desert (\u00a7 51, 1),\n an _Apologia pro fide sua_, the _Invectiv\u00e6 Hieron._ in\n 2 bks. the treatise _De benedictionibus Patriarcharum_,\n an exposition of Genesis xlix. in the spirit and style of\n Origen, and an _Expositio symboli apost._\n\n c. =Sulpicius Severus=[149] from Aquitania in Gaul, had gained\n great reputation by his eloquence as an advocate, when the\n death of his young wife disgusted him with the world, and\n led him to withdraw into a monastery. He died about A.D. 410.\n In his _Chronica_ or _Historia sacra_ (\u00a7 5, 1), a summary\n of biblical and ecclesiastical history, he imitates not\n unsuccessfully the eloquence of Sallust, so that he has\n been called \u201cthe Christian Sallust.\u201d His _Vita_ of Martin\n of Tours is a panegyric overflowing with reports of miracles.\n The three dialogues on the virtues of Eastern Monks and on\n the merits of St. Martin, may be regarded as a supplement to\n the _Vita_.\n\n d. =Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus= is the name by which Peter,\n bishop of Ravenna, is best known. He also received the title\n _Chrysostomus Latinorum_. He died in A.D. 450. Among the\n 176 _Sermones_ ascribed to him, the discourses expository\n of the baptismal formula are deserving of special mention.\n Of his Epistles, one in Latin and Greek addressed to Eutyches\n (\u00a7 52, 4) is still preserved, in which the writer warns\n Eutyches against doctrinal errors.\n\n \u00a7 47.18. =The Hero of the Soteriological\n Controversy.=--=Augustine=--_Aurelius Augustinus_--was born in\n A.D. 354 at Tagaste in Numidia. From his pious mother Monica he\n early received Christian religious impressions which, however,\n were again in great measure effaced by his pagan father the\n _Decurio_ Patricius. While he studied in Carthage, he gave way\n to sensuality and worldly pleasure. Cicero\u2019s Hortensius first\n awakened again in him a longing after higher things. From about\n A.D. 374 he sought satisfaction in the tenets of the Manich\u00e6an\n sect, strongly represented in Africa, and for ten years he\n continued a catechumen of that order. But here, too, at last\n finding himself cruelly deceived in his struggle after the\n knowledge of the truth, he would have sunk into the most utter\n scepticism, had not the study of the Platonic philosophy still for\n awhile held him back. In A.D. 383 he left Africa and went to Rome,\n and in the following year he took up his residence in Milan as a\n teacher of eloquence. An African bishop, once himself a Manich\u00e6an,\n had comforted his anxious mother, who followed him hither, by\n assuring her that the son of so many sighs and prayers could\n not be finally lost. At Milan too the sermons of Ambrose made\n an impression on Augustine\u2019s heart. He now began diligently to\n search the scriptures. At last the hour arrived of his complete\n renewal of heart and life. After an earnest conversation with\n his friend Alypius, he hastened into the solitude of the garden.\n While agonizing in prayer he heard the words thrice repeated:\n _Tolle, lege_! He took up the scriptures, and his eye fell upon\n the passage Rom. xiii. 13, 14. This utterance of stern Christian\n morality seemed as if written for himself alone, and from this\n moment he received into his wounded spirit a peace such as he had\n never known before. In order to prepare for baptism he withdrew\n with his mother and some friends to the country house of one of\n them, where scientific studies, pious exercises and conversations\n on the highest problems of life occupied his time. Out of\n these conversations sprang his philosophical writings. At\n Easter A.D. 387 Ambrose baptized him, and at the same time his\n illegitimate son Adeodatus, who not long afterwards died. His\n return journey to Africa was delayed by the death of his mother\n at Ostia, and at last, after almost a year\u2019s residence in Rome,\n he reached his old home again. In Rome he applied himself to\n combat the errors of Manich\u00e6ism, arguing with many of his old\n companions whom he met there. After his return to Africa in\n A.D. 388, he spent some years on his small patrimonial estate\n at Tagaste engaged in scientific work. During a casual visit to\n Hippo in A.D. 391 he was, in spite of all resistance, ordained\n presbyter, and in A.D. 395 colleague of the aged and feeble\n bishop Valerius, whose successor he became in the following year.\n Now began the brilliant period of his career, in which he stands\n forth as a pillar of the church and the centre of all theological\n and ecclesiastical life throughout the whole Western world. In\n A.D. 400 began his battle against the Donatists (\u00a7 63, 1). And\n scarcely had he brought this to a successful end in a religious\n discussion at Carthage in A.D. 411, when he was drawn into a far\n more important Soteriological controversy by Pelagius and his\n followers (\u00a7 53), which he continued till the close of his life.\n His death occurred in A.D. 430 during the siege of Carthage by\n the Vandals. He has written his own life in his _Confessiones_\n (Engl. translat., Oxf., 1838; Edin., 1876). In the form of an\n address to God he here unfolds before the Omniscient One his\n whole past life with all its errors and gracious providences\n in the language of prayer full of the holiest earnestness and\n most profound humility, a lively commentary on the opening\n words: _Magnus es, Domine, et laudabilis valde.... Fecisti nos\n ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te._\n The biography of his disciple Possidius may serve as a supplement\n to the Confessions.--Augustine was the greatest, most powerful,\n and most influential of all the fathers. In consequence of his\n thoroughly Western characteristics he was indeed less perfectly\n understood and appreciated in the East; but all the greater was\n his reputation in the West, where the whole development of church\n and doctrine seemed always to move about him as its centre. The\n main field of his literary activity in consequence of his own\n peculiar mental qualities, his philosophical culture, speculative\n faculty, and dialectic skill, as well as the ecclesiastical\n conflicts of his time, to which his most important works are\n devoted, was Systematic Theology, Dogmatics and Ethics, Polemics\n and Apologetics. He is weakest as an exegete; for he had little\n interest in philological and grammatico-historical research into\n the simple literal sense of scripture. He was unacquainted with\n the original language of the Old Testament, and even the New\n Testament he treats only in a popular way according to the Latin\n translations. Neither does he deal much with the exegetical\n foundations of dogmatics, which he rather develops from the\n Christian consciousness by means of speculation and dialectic,\n and from the proof of its meeting the needs of humanity. Over\n against philosophy he insisted upon the independence and\n necessity of faith as the presupposition and basis of all\n religious knowledge. _Rationabiliter dictum est per prophetam:\n Nisi credideretis non intelligetis. Credamus ut id quod credimus\n intelligere valeamus._\n\n \u00a7 47.19. =Augustine\u2019s Works.=\n\n a. =Philosophical Treatises= belonging to the period preceding\n his ordination. The 3 bks. _Contra Academicos_ combat\n their main position that men cannot attain to any certain\n knowledge; the treatise _De Vita beata_ shows that true\n happiness consists in the knowledge of God; the 2 bks. _De\n Ordine_ treat of the relation of good and evil in the divine\n order of the world; the 2 bks. _Soliloquia_ are monologues\n on the means and conditions of the knowledge of supernatural\n truths, and contain beside the main question an Appendix _De\n immortalitate anim\u00e6_, etc.\n\n b. =Dogmatic Treatises.= The most important are: _De Trinitate_\n in 15 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1874), a speculative\n dogmatic construction of the dogma, of great importance\n for its historical development; _De doctrina christiana_\n in 4 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1875), of which the first\n three bks. form a guide to the exposition of scripture after\n the analogy of faith, while the 4th book shows how the truth\n thus discovered is to be used (Hermeneutics and Homiletics);\n finally, the two bks. _Retractationes_, written in his\n last years, in which he passes an unfavourable judgment\n on his earlier writings, and withdraws or modifies much in\n them. Among his =Moral-ascetic writings= the bk. _De bono\n conjugali_ is of special interest, called forth by Jovinian\u2019s\n utterances on non-meritoriousness of the unmarried state\n (\u00a7 62, 2); he admits the high value of Christian marriage,\n but yet sees in celibacy genuinely chosen as a means to\n holiness a higher step in the Christian life. Also the\n bk. _De adulterinis conjugis_ against second marriages,\n and two treatises _De Mendacium_ and _Contra Mendacium ad\n Consentium_, which in opposition to the contrary doctrine\n of the Priscillianists (\u00a7 54, 2), unconditionally repudiates\n the admissibility of equivocation.\n\n c. =Controversial Treatises.= Of 11 treatises against the\n Manich\u00e6ans (\u00a7 54, 1) the most important is that _C. Faustum_\n in 33 bks. (Engl. transl., Edin., 1875), interesting as\n reproducing in quotations the greater part of the last work\n of this great champion of the Manich\u00e6ans. Then came the\n discussion with the Donatists (\u00a7 63, 1), which he engaged\n in with great vigour. We have ten treatises directed against\n them (Engl. transl., Edin., 1873). Of far greater importance\n was the conflict which soon after broke out against the\n Pelagians and then against the semi-Pelagians (\u00a7 53, 4, 5),\n in which he wrote fourteen treatises (Engl. transl.,\n 3 vols., Edin., 1873-1876). Also the Arians, Priscillianists,\n Origenists and Marcionites were combated by him in special\n treatises, and in the bk. _De h\u00e6resibus_ he gave a summary\n account of the various heresies that had come under his\n notice.\n\n d. Among his =Apologetical Treatises= against pagans and\n Jews, by far the ablest and most important is the work _De\n Civitate Dei_, in 22 bks., a truly magnificent conception\n (Engl. transl., 2 vols., Edin., 1873), the most substantial\n of all apologetical works of Christian antiquity, called\n forth by the reproach of the heathens that the repeated\n successes of the barbarians resulted from the weakening and\n deteriorating influence of Christianity upon the empire.\n The author repels this reproach in the first four bks.\n by showing how the Roman empire had previously in itself\n the seeds of decay in its godless selfishness, and thence\n advancing immorality; Ilium was and continued pagan, but\n its gods could not save it from destruction. Ilium\u2019s Epigone,\n haughty Rome, meets the same fate. It owed its power only to\n God\u2019s will and His government of the world, and to His using\n it as a scourge for the nations. The next five books show\n the corruption of the heathen religions and the inadequacy\n of heathen philosophy. Then the last 12 bks. point out\n the contrast between the kingdom of God and the kingdom\n of the world in respect of their diverse foundations,\n their entirely different motive powers, their historical\n development and their ultimate disposal in the last judgment.\n\n e. The most important and complete of his =Exegetical Works=\n are the 12 bks. _De Genesi ad litteram_, a gigantic\n commentary on the three first chapters of Genesis, which\n in spite of its title very often leaves the firm ground\n of the literal sense to revel in the airy regions of\n spiritualistic and mystical expatiation. Of his _Sermones_,\n 400 are recognised as genuine (Engl. transl., Hom. on N.T.,\n 2 vols., Oxf., 1844 f.; Hom. on John and 1st John, 2 vols.,\n Oxf., 1848; Comm. on Psalms, 6 vols., Oxf., 1847 f.; Harmony\n of Evangelists, and Serm. on Mt., Edin., 1874; Commentary\n on John, 2 vols., Edin., 1875). His correspondence still\n preserved comprises 270 Epistles (Engl. transl., 2 vols.,\n Edin., 1874, 1876).\n\n \u00a7 47.20. =Augustine\u2019s Disciples and Friends.=\n\n a. =Paulinus=, deacon of Milan, who wrote, at Augustine\u2019s\n request, the life of Ambrose, awakened in A.D. 411 the\n Pelagian controversy by the charges which he made, and\n took part in it himself by writing in A.D. 417 the _Libellus\n c. C\u0153lestium ad Zosimum Papam_.\n\n b. =Paulus [Paul] Orosius=, a Spanish presbyter, who visited\n Augustine in Africa in A.D. 415 to urge him to combat\n Priscillianism, took part with him there in his conflict\n with the Pelagians. He has left behind a _Commonitorium de\n errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum ad Augustinum_;\n an _Apologeticus de arbitrii libertate c. Pelagium_ and\n _Hist. adv. Paganos_ in 7 bks. The last named work was\n written at Augustine\u2019s urgent entreaty, and pursues in a\n purely historical manner the same end which Augustine in his\n _City of God_ sought to reach in a dogmatico-apologetic way.\n\n c. =Marius Mercator= was a learned and acute layman, belonging\n to the West, but latterly resident in Constantinople. He\n made every effort to secure the condemnation of Pelagianism\n even in the East, and so wrote not only against its Western\n leaders but also against its Antiochean supporters, Nestorius\n and Theodore of Mopsuestia (\u00a7 53, 4).\n\n d. =Prosper Aquitanicus=, also a layman and an enthusiastic\n follower of Augustine, not only wrote several treatises\n against the semi-Pelagians of his native Gaul (\u00a7 53, 5),\n but also poured out the vials of his wrath upon them in\n poetic effusions (\u00a7 48, 6). He died about A.D. 460.\n\n e. =C\u00e6sarius, bishop of Arelate=, now Arles in Gaul, originally\n a monk in the monastery of Larinum, was one of the most\n celebrated, most influential, and in church work most\n serviceable of the men of his times. It is also mainly\n due to him that in A.D. 529 moderate Augustinianism gained\n the victory over semi-Pelagianism. He died in A.D. 543.\n His treatise _De gratia et libero arbitrio_ is no longer\n extant, but two rules for monks and nuns composed by him,\n _Ad monachos_, _Ad virgines_, as well as a considerable\n number of _Sermones_, the best of their time, are still\n preserved.\n\n f. =Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe= in Africa, on account of\n his zeal for the Catholic doctrine, was banished by the\n Arian Vandal king Thrasimund, but returned after the\n king\u2019s death in A.D. 523. He was one of the stoutest\n champions of Augustinianism. His writings against Arians\n and semi-Pelagians have been often printed. He died in\n A.D. 555. His scholar and biographer was =Fulgentius\n Ferrandus=, deacon at Carthage about A.D. 547. Alongside\n of and after him we meet with bishop =Facundus= of Hermiane,\n and the archdeacon =Liberatus of Carthage=, who with\n characteristic African energy defend the _Tria Capitula_\n (\u00a7 52, 6) basely surrendered by the Roman bishop Vigilius.\n\n \u00a7 47.21. =Pelagians and semi-Pelagians.=\n\n I. =Pelagius=, a British monk, the originator of the heresy\n named after him (\u00a7 53, 3, 4), left behind a considerable\n number of writings, of which, however, for the most part\n we have now only fragments in the works of his opponents.\n References in Augustine, Marius Mercator, and others show\n that to him belong the _Lb._ xiv. _Expositionum in Epistt.\n Pauli_, which have been ascribed to Jerome and included\n among his works, scholia-like explanations with good sound\n grammatico-historical exegesis. The wish to make this\n useable and safe for the Catholic church led at an early\n date to various omissions and alterations in it. Afterwards\n its heretical origin was forgotten which notwithstanding\n the purifying referred to is still quite discernible. Two\n epistles addressed to Roman ladies recommending virginity\n have also got a place among the works of Jerome.--=Julianus,\n bishop of Eclanum= in Italy, is the only one among the\n followers of Pelagius who can be regarded as of scientific\n importance. He was an acute but frivolous and vulgar\n opponent of Augustine, whom he honoured with the epithets\n _amentissimus et bardissimus_ (comp. \u00a7 53, 4).\n\n II. At the head of the semi-Pelagians or Massilians stands:\n\n a. =Johannes Cassianus=. Gennadius designates him as\n _natione Scythus_; but he received his early education\n in a monastery at Bethlehem. He then undertook a\n journey in company with the abbot to visit the Egyptian\n monks, stayed next for a long time with Chrysostom at\n Constantinople, and after his banishment resided some\n years in Rome, and finally in A.D. 415 settled down at\n Massilia (Marseilles), where he established a monastery\n and a nunnery, and organised both after the Eastern\n model. He died about A.D. 432. His writings were held\n in high esteem throughout the Middle Ages. In the\n _De institutis C\u0153nobiorum_ he describes the manner\n of life of the Palestinian and Egyptian monks, and\n then treats of the eight vices to which the monks were\n specially exposed. The 24 _Collationes Patrum_ report\n the conversations which he had with the Eastern monks\n and hermits about the ways and means of attaining\n Christian perfection. The 13th _Collatio_ is, without\n naming him, directed against Augustine\u2019s doctrine,\n and develops semi-Pelagian Synergism (\u00a7 53, 5). Both\n writings, however are certainly calculated to serve\n the development of his own monkish ideal as well as his\n own dogmatic and ethical views, rather then to afford\n a historically faithful representation of the life and\n thinking of oriental monasticism of that time. The 7 bks.\n _De incarnatione Christi_ combat not only Nestorianism\n but also Pelagianism as in its consequences derogatory\n to the divinity of Christ.\n\n b. =Vincentius [Vincent] Lerinensis=, monk in the Gallic\n monastery of Lerinum, was Cassianus\u2019 most distinguished\n disciple. He died about A.D. 450. On his often printed\n _Commonitorium pro cath. fidei antiquit. et universit._,\n comp. \u00a7 53, 5.\n\n c. =Eucherius, bishop of Lyons=, left behind him several\n ascetical works (_De laude eremi; De contemtu mundi_),\n Homilies, and a _Liber formularum spiritualis\n intelligenti\u00e6_ as guide to the mystico-allegorical\n interpretation of Scripture. He died about A.D. 450.\n\n d. =Salvianus=, presbyter at Marseilles, was in his\n earlier days married to a heathen woman whom he\n converted, and with her took the vow of continency.\n He died about A.D. 485. He wrote _Adv. avaritiam_\n Lb. iv., in which the support of the poor and surrender\n of property to the church for pious uses are recommended\n as means of furthering the salvation of one\u2019s own soul.\n In consequence of the oppression of the times during\n the convulsions of the migration of the peoples and\n the reproach of the heathen again loudly raised that\n the weakness of the Roman empire was occasioned by the\n introduction of Christianity, he wrote _De providentia\n s. de gubernatione Dei et de justo pr\u00e6sentique judicio_,\n Lb. viii., which in rhetorical and flowery language\n depicted the dreadful moral condition of the Roman\n world of that day.\n\n e. =Faustus of Rhegium=, now Riez in Provence, in his\n earlier years an advocate, then monk and abbot of the\n cloister of Lerinum, and finally bishop of Rhegium, was\n the head of the Gallic semi-Pelagians of his times. In\n his writings he stated this doctrine in a moderate form.\n He died in A.D. 493.\n\n f. =Arnobius the Younger=, the contemporary and\n fellow-countryman of Faustus, wrote a very important\n work entitled _Pr\u00e6destinatus_, which in a very thorough\n and elaborate manner contests the doctrines of Augustine.\n Comp. \u00a7 53, 5.\n\n \u00a7 47.22. =The Most Important Church Teachers among the Roman\n Popes.=\n\n a. =Leo the Great= occupied the papal chair from A.D. 440 to\n A.D. 461. While but a deacon he was the most distinguished\n personage in Rome. On assuming the bishopric he gave the\n whole powers of his mind to the administration of his office\n in all directions. By the energy and consistency with which\n he carried out the idea of the Roman primacy, he became the\n virtual founder of the spiritual sovereignty of Rome. With\n a strong arm he guided the helm of the church, reformed\n and organized on every side, settled order and discipline,\n defended orthodoxy, contended against heretics (Manich\u00e6ans,\n Priscillianists, Pelagians, Eutychians), and appeased the\n barbarians (Attila). Of his writings we have 96 _Sermones_\n and 173 Epistles, which last are of the utmost importance\n for the church history of his times. He is also supposed\n to be the author of a talented work _De vocatione Gentium_\n (\u00a7 53, 5).\n\n b. =Gelasius I.=, A.D. 492 to A.D. 496, left behind him a\n treatise _Adv. h\u00e6resin Pelagianem_, another _De duabus\n in Christo naturis_, and a work against the observance of\n the Lupercalia which some prominent Romans wished to have\n continued. He also wrote 18 Decretals. The celebrated\n _Decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis_, in\n a sense the oldest _Index prohibitorum_, is ascribed to\n him. The first section, wanting in the best MSS., contains\n a biblical canon corresponding to that of the Synod of\n Hippo, A.D. 393 (\u00a7 59, 1); the second section treats of\n the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome granted by our Lord\n Himself in the person of Peter; the third enumerates the\n \u0153cumenical Councils; and the fourth, the writings of the\n fathers received by the Roman Church; the Chronicle and\n Church History of Eusebius are found fault with (_quod\n tepuerit_) but not rejected; in respect to the writings of\n Origen and Rufinus the opinion of Jerome is approved. The\n fifth section gives a list of books not to be received--the\n New Testament Apocrypha, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,\n Arnobius, Cassianus, Faustus of Rhegium, etc.\n\n c. =Gregory the Great=, A.D. 590 to A.D. 604, born in Rome\n about A.D. 540, sprung from a distinguished old Roman\n family, held about A.D. 574 the office of city prefect,\n after his father\u2019s death founded on his inherited estates,\n six monasteries, and himself withdrew into a seventh,\n which he built in Rome. Ordained deacon against his will in\n A.D. 579, he was entrusted with the important and difficult\n office of a papal _apocrisiarius_ in Constantinople, and was\n constrained in A.D. 590, after a long persisted-in refusal,\n to mount the papal chair, which obliged him to abandon\n the long-cherished plan of his life, the preaching of the\n gospel to the Anglo-Saxons (\u00a7 77, 4). Gregory united a rare\n power and energy of will with real mildness and gentleness\n of character, deep humility and genuine piety with the\n full consciousness of his position as a successor of Peter,\n insight, circumspection, yea even an unexpected measure of\n liberal-mindedness (comp. _e.g._ \u00a7 57, 4; 75, 3) with all\n monkish narrowness and stiff adherence to the traditional\n forms, doctrines and views of the Roman Church. He himself\n lived in extremest poverty and simplicity according to\n the strictest monastic asceticism, and applied all that he\n possessed and received to the support of the poor and the\n help of the needy. It was a hard time in which he lived,\n the age of the birth throes of a new epoch of the world\u2019s\n history. There is therefore much cause to thank the good\n providence which set such a man as spiritual father, teacher\n and pastor at the head of the Western Church. He took special\n interest in fostering monasticism and such-like institutions,\n which were, indeed, most conducive to the well-being of\n the world, for during this dangerous period of convulsion,\n monasticism was almost the only nursery of intellectual\n culture. The Roman Catholic church ranks him as the last\n of the Fathers, and places him alongside of Ambrose, Jerome\n and Augustine, the four greatest teachers of the church,\n _Doctores ecclesi\u00e6_, whose writings have been long reverenced\n as the purest and most complete vehicles of the Catholic\n tradition. Among the Greeks a similar position is given to\n Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom. The\n rank thus assigned to Gregory is justifiable inasmuch as\n in him the formation and malformation of doctrine, worship,\n discipline and constitution peculiar to the ancient church\n are gathered up, completed and closed. His most complete\n work is the _Expositio in b. Jobum s. Moralium_, Ll. xxxv.,\n (Engl. transl., Lib. of Fath., 3 vols., Oxf., 1844-1850)\n which, by dragging in all possible relations of life which\n an allegorical interpretation can furnish, is expanded into\n a repertory of moral reflections. His _Regula pastoralis\n s. Liber cur\u00e6 pastoralis_ obtained in the West a position\n of almost canonical authority. In his \u201cDialogues,\u201d of which\n the first three books treat \u201c_de vita et miraculis Patrum\n Italicorum_,\u201d and the 4th book mostly of visionary views of\n the hereafter (heaven, hell and purgatory), \u201c_de \u00e6ternitate\n animarum_,\u201d we meet with a very singular display of the most\n uncritical credulousness and the most curious superstition.\n Besides these we have from him Homilies on Ezekiel and\n the Gospels, as well as a voluminous correspondence in\n 880 Epistles of great importance for the history of the\n age. To Gregory also is attributed the oft quoted saying\n which compares holy scripture to a stream _in quo agnus\n peditat et elephas natat_.\n\n \u00a7 47.23. =The Conservators and Continuators of Patristic Culture.=\n\n a. =Bo\u00ebthius=, Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus, was\n descended from a distinguished Roman family, and stood high\n in favour with the Ostrogoth Arian king Theodoric. Accused,\n however, by his enemies of treasonable correspondence with\n the Byzantine court, he was, after a long imprisonment,\n condemned unheard and executed, A.D. 525. In prison\n he composed the celebrated treatise, _De consolatione\n philosophi\u00e6_, which, written in pure and noble language,\n was the favourite book of the Latin Middle Ages, and was\n translated into all European languages: first of all by\n Alfred the Great into Anglo-Saxon, and often reprinted in\n its original form. The book owed its great popularity to the\n medi\u00e6val tradition which made its author a martyr for the\n Catholic faith under Arian persecution; but modern criticism\n has sought to prove that in all probability he was not even\n a Christian. Still more decidedly the theological writings\n on the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ bearing his\n name are repudiated as irreconcileable with the contents\n and character of the _De consolatione_; though, on the\n other hand, their authenticity has again found several\n most capable defenders. Finally, Usener has conclusively,\n as it seems, in a newly discovered fragment of Cassiodorus,\n brought forward a quite incontestable witness for their\n authenticity. In any case Bo\u00ebthius did great service in\n preserving the continuity of Western culture by his hearty\n encouragement and careful prosecution of classical studies\n at a time when these were threatened with utter neglect. Of\n special importance was his translation of a commentary on\n the logical works of Aristotle as the first and for a long\n time almost the only philosophical groundwork of medi\u00e6val\n scholasticism (\u00a7 99, 2).\n\n c. Magnus Aurelius =Cassiodorus=, surnamed Senator, belonged\n to Southern Italy and held the highest civil offices under\n Odoacer and Theodoric for fifty years. About A.D. 540,\n he retired to the cloister of Vivarium founded by him in\n Southern Italy, and devoted the rest of his life to the\n sciences and the instruction of the monks. He collected a\n great library in his monastery, and employed the monks in\n transcribing classical and patristic writings. He died about\n A.D. 575 when almost a hundred years old. His own writings\n show indeed no independence and originality, but are all\n the more important as concentrated collections of classical\n and patristic learning for the later Latin Middle Ages. His\n twelve books of the History of the Goths have come down only\n in the condensed reproduction of Jordanes or Jornandes. His\n twelve books _Variarum_ (_sc. epistolarum et formularum_),\n which consist of a collection of acts and ordinances of the\n period of his civil service, are important for the history\n of his age. His _Historia ecclest. tripartita_ (\u00a7 5, 1),\n was for many centuries almost the only text book of church\n history, and his _Institutiones divinarum et s\u00e6cularum\n litterarum_ had a similar position as a guide to the study\n of theology and the seven liberal arts (\u00a7 90, 8). Also his\n commentary on the Psalms and the most of the books of the\n New Testament, made up of compilations, was held in high\n esteem.\n\n c. =Dionysius Exiguus=, a Scythian by birth, who became a Roman\n abbot, and died about A.D. 566, may also be placed in this\n group. He translated many Greek patristic writings, by his\n _Cyclus paschalis_ became founder of the Western reckoning\n of Easter (\u00a7 56, 3), and also the more universally adopted\n so-called Dionysian era. By his _Codex Canonum_ he is also\n the founder of the Western system of Canon Law (\u00a7 43, 3).\n\n\n \u00a7 48. BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN POETRY.\n\n \u00a7 48.1. =Exegetical Theology.=--Nothing was done in the way\n of criticism of the original biblical text. Even Jerome was\n only a translator. For the Old Testament the LXX. sufficed,\n and the divergences of the Hebrew text were explained as\n Jewish alterations. Hebrew was a _terra incognita_ to the\n fathers, Polychronius and Jerome only are notable exceptions.\n The allegorical method of interpretation was and continued to be\n the prevalent one. The Antiocheans, however, put limits to it by\n their theory and practice of the right of historico-grammatical\n interpretation. Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia\n contested the principles of Origen, while Gregory of Nyssa in his\n _Proemium in Cant._ undertook their defence. The first attempt\n at a system of =Hermeneutics= was made by the learned Donatist\n Tychonius in his book the _Regul\u00e6_ vii. _ad investigandam\n intelligentiam ss. Scr._ More profound is Augustine\u2019s _De\n Doctrina Chr._ The \u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 of the Greek\n Adrianus with its opposition to the immoderate allegorizing\n that then prevailed, deserves mention here. Jerome contributed\n to biblical =Introduction= by his various _Pro\u0153mia_. The\n first attempt at a scientific introduction to biblical study\n (isagogical and biblico-theological in the form of question\n and answer), is met with in the 2 bks. _Instituta regularia\n div. legis_ of the African Junilius, a prominent courtier at\n Constantinople, about A.D. 550. There is a Latin rendering made\n by Junilius at the request of Primasius, bishop of Adrumetum,\n of a treatise composed originally in Syriac, by Paul the Persian,\n teacher of the Nestorian seminary at Nisibis, which he had\n collected from the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, for the\n purposes of instruction. The title _Departibus div. legis_,\n usually given to the whole, properly belongs only to the first\n part of the treatise. A more popular guide is Cassiodorus\u2019\n _Institutio divinarum litt._ Some contributions were made\n to biblical archaeology by Eusebius and Epiphanius. Of the\n allegorical =Exegetes= of the East, the most productive was\n Cyril of Alexandria. The Antiochean school produced a whole\n series of able expositors of the grammatico-historical sense\n of scripture. In the commentaries of Chrysostom and Ephraem\n [Ephraim] the Syrian, that method of interpretation is applied\n in a directly practical interest. The Westerns Hilary, Ambrose,\n Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine, as well as their later\n imitators, all allegorize; yet Jerome also applied himself very\n diligently to the elucidation of the grammatical sense. Only\n Pelagius is content to rest in the plain literal meaning of\n scripture. From the 6th century, almost all independent work in\n the department of exegesis ceased. We have from this time only\n _Caten\u00e6_, collections of passages from commentaries and homilies\n of distinguished fathers. The first Greek writer of Caten\u00e6, was\n Procopius of Gaza, in the 6th century; and the first Latin writer\n of these was Primasius of Adrumetum, about A.D. 560.\n\n \u00a7 48.2. =Historical Theology.=--The writing of Church history\n flourished especially during the 4th and 5th centuries (\u00a7 5, 1).\n For the history of heresies we have Epiphanius, Theodoret,\n Leontius of Byzantium; and among the Latins, Augustine,\n Philastrius [Philaster], and the author of _Pr\u00e6destinatus_\n (\u00a7 47, 21f). There are numerous biographies of distinguished\n fathers. On these compare the so-called _Liber pontificalis_, see\n \u00a7 90, 6. Jerome laid the foundation of a history of theological\n literature in a series of biographies, and Gennadius of\n Massilia continued this work. With special reference to monkish\n history, we have among the Greeks, Palladius, Theodoret and\n Joh. Moschus; and among the Latins, Rufinus, Jerome, Gregory\n the Great and Gregory of Tours (\u00a7 90, 2). Of great importance\n for ecclesiastical statistics is the \u03a4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\n in 12 bks., whose author _Cosmas Indicopleustes_, monk in the\n Sinai peninsula about A.D. 540, had in his earlier years as an\n Alexandrian merchant travelled much in the East. The connection\n of biblical and profane history is treated of in the Chronicle\n of Eusebius. Orosius too treats of profane history from the\n Christian standpoint. The _Hist. persecutionis Vandalorum_\n (\u00a7 76, 3), of Victor, bishop of Vita in Africa, about A.D. 487,\n is of great value for the church history of Africa. For chronology\n the so-called _Chronicon paschale_, in the Greek language, is of\n great importance. It is the work of two unknown authors; the work\n of the one reaching down to A.D. 354, that of the other, down to\n A.D. 630. These chronological tables obtained their name from the\n fact that the Easter cycles and indictions are always carefully\n determined in them.\n\n \u00a7 48.3. =Systematic Theology.=\n\n a. =Apologetics.= The controversial treatises of Porphyry\n and Hierocles were answered by many (\u00a7 23, 3); that of\n the Emperor Julian also (\u00a7 42, 5), especially by Gregory\n Nazianzen, Chrysostum [Chrysostom] (in the Discourse on\n St. Babylas), and most powerfully by Cyril of Alexandria.\n Ambrose and the poet Prudentius answered the tract of\n Symmachus, referred to in \u00a7 42, 4. The insinuations of\n Zosimus, Eunapius, and others (\u00a7 42, 5) were met by Orosius\n with his _Histori\u00e6_, by Augustine with his _Civ. Dei_,\n and by Salvian [Salvianus] with his _De gubernatione\n Dei_. Johannes Philoponus wrote against Proclus\u2019 denial\n of the biblical doctrine of creation. The vindication of\n Christianity against the charges of the Jews was undertaken\n by Aphraates, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Gregentius, bishop\n of Taphne in Arabia, who, in A.D. 540, disputed for four\n days amid a great crowd with the Jew Herban. Apologies of\n a general character were written by Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea,\n Athanasius, Theodoret and Firmicus Maternus.\n\n b. In =Polemics= against earlier and later heretics, the\n utmost energy and an abundance of acuteness and depth of\n thought were displayed. See under the history of theological\n discussions, \u00a7 50 ff.\n\n c. Positive =Dogmatics=. Origen\u2019s example in the construction\n of a complete scientific system of doctrine has no imitator.\n For practical purposes, however, the whole range of Christian\n doctrine was treated by Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of\n Nyssa, Apollinaris, Epiphanius, Rufinus (_Expositio Symboli\n Apost._), Augustine (in the last book of the _Civ. Dei_, in\n first book of his _De Doctrina Chr._, and in the _Enchiridium\n ad Laurentium_). The African Fulgentius of Ruspe (_De regula\n ver\u00e6 fidei_), Gennadius of Massilia (_De fide sua_), and\n Vincentius [Vincent] of Lerinum in his _Commonitorium_. Much\n more important results for the development of particular\n dogmas were secured by means of polemics. Of supreme\n influence on subsequent ages were the mystico-theosophical\n writings of the Pseudo-Areopagite. This mysticism, so far\n as adopted, was combined by the acute and profound thinker\n Maximus Confessor with the orthodox theology of the Councils.\n\n d. =Morals.= The _De officiis ministr._ of Ambrose is a system\n of moral instruction for the clergy; and of the same sort\n is Chrysostom\u2019s \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2; while Cassianus\u2019 writings\n form a moral system for the monks, and Gregory\u2019s _Exposit.\n in Jobum_ a vast repertory on general morality.\n\n \u00a7 48.4. =Practical Theology.=--The whole period is peculiarly\n rich in distinguished homilists. The most brilliant of the Greek\n preachers were: Macarius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory\n Nazianzen, Ephraem [Ephraim] the Syrian, and above all Chrysostom.\n Of the Latins the most distinguished were Ambrose, Augustine,\n Zeno of Verona, Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus, Leo the Great, and\n C\u00e6sarius of Arles. A sort of Homiletics is found in the 4th of\n Augustine\u2019s _De Doctr. Chr._, and a directory for pastoral work,\n in the _Regula pastoralia_ of Gregory the Great. On Liturgical\n writings, comp. \u00a7 59, 6; on Constitutional works, \u00a7 43, 3-5.\n\n \u00a7 48.5. =Christian Poetry.=--The beginning of the prevalence of\n Christianity occurred at a time when the poetic art had already\n ceased to be consecrated to the national life of the ancient\n world. But it proved an intellectual power which could cause to\n swell out again the poetic vein, relaxed by the weakness of age.\n In spite of the depraved taste and deteriorated language, it\n called forth a new period of brilliancy in the history of poetry\n which could rival classical poetry, not indeed in purity and\n elegance of form, but in intensity and depth. The Latins in\n this far excelled the Greeks; for to them Christianity was more\n a matter of experience, emotion, the inner life, to the Greeks\n a matter of knowledge and speculation. Among the =Greeks= the\n most distinguished are these: =Gregory Nazianzen=. He deserves\n notice mainly for his satirical _Carmen de vita sua_, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n Among his numerous other poems are some beautiful hymns and\n many striking phrases, but also much that is weak and flat.\n The drama \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, perhaps wrongly bearing his name,\n modelled on the tragedies of Euripides and in great part made\n up of Euripidean verses, is not without interest as the first\n Christian passion-play, and contains some beautiful passages;\n _e.g._ the lament of Mary; but it is on the whole insipid\n and confused. =Nonnus of Panopolis=, about A.D. 400, wrote\n a \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, somewhat more\n useful for textual criticism and archaeology, than likely\n to afford enjoyment as poetry. Of the poetical works of the\n Empress =Eudocia=, wife of Theodosius II., daughter of the\n pagan rhetorician Leontius of Athens, hence called Athenais\n (she died about the year 460), only fragments of their renderings\n in the Cyprian legends have come down to us. The loss of her\n _Homero-centoes_ celebrated by Photius, _i.e._ reproductions\n of the biblical books of the New Testament in pure Homeric words\n and verses, is not perhaps to be very sorely lamented. On the\n other hand, the poetic description of the church of Sophia, built\n by Justinian I. and of the ambo of that church which =Paulus\n Silentiarius= left behind him, is not only of archaeological\n value, but also is not without poetic merit.\n\n \u00a7 48.6. =Christian Latin Poetry= reached its highest excellence\n in the composition of hymns (\u00a7 59, 4). But also in the more\n ambitious forms of epic, didactic, panegyric, and hortatory\n poems, it has respectable representatives, especially in Spain\n and Gaul, whose excellence of workmanship during such a period\n of restlessness and confusion is truly wonderful. To the fourth\n century belongs the Spaniard =Juvencus=, about A.D. 330. His\n _Hist. evangelica_ in 4 books, is the first Christian epic;\n a work of sublime simplicity, free of all bombast or rhetorical\n rant, which obtained for him the name of \u201cthe Christian Virgil.\u201d\n His _Liber in Genesin_ versifies in a similar manner the Mosaic\n history of the patriarchs. His countryman =Prudentius=, who died\n about A.D. 410, was a poet of the first rank, distinguished for\n depth of sensibility, glowing enthusiasm, high lyrical flow,\n and singular skill in versification. His _Liber Cathemerinon_\n consists of 12 hymns, for the 12 hours of the day, and his\n _Liber Peristephanon_, 14 hymns on the same number of saints who\n had won the martyr\u2019s crown; his _Apotheosis_ is an Anti-Arian\n glorification of Christ; the _Hamartigenia_ treats of the origin\n of sin; the _Psychomachia_ describes the conflict of the virtues\n and vices of the human soul; and his 2 bks. _Contra Symmachum_\n combat the views of Symmachus, referred to in \u00a7 42, 4.--In the\n fifth century flourished: =Paulinus=, bishop of Nola in Campania,\n who died in A.D. 431. He left behind him 30 poems, of which\n 13 celebrate in noble, enthusiastic language, the life of Felix\n of Nola, martyr during the Decian persecution. =Coelius Sedulius=,\n an Irishman (?), composed in smooth dignified verse the Life of\n Jesus, and the _Mirabilia divina s. Opus paschale_, so called\n from 1 Cor. v. 7 in 5 bks.; and a Collatio V. et N.T. in elegiac\n verse. The _De libero arbitrio c. ingratos_ of the Gaul =Prosper\n Aquitanicus= lashes with poetic fury the thankless despisers of\n grace (\u00a7 53, 5).--The most important poet of the sixth century\n was =Venantius Fortunatus=, bishop of Poitiers, _Vita Martini_,\n hymns, elegies, etc.\n\n \u00a7 48.7. In the =National Syrian= Church, the first place as a\n poet belongs to =Ephraem= [Ephraim], the _Propheta Syrorum_. In\n poetic endowment, lyrical flow, depth and intensity of feeling,\n he leaves all later writers far behind. Next to him stands\n =Cyrillonas=, about A.D. 400, a poet whose very name, until quite\n recently, was unknown, of whose poems six are extant, two being\n metrical homilies. Of =Rabulas of Edessa=, who died in A.D. 435,\n the notorious partisan of Cyril of Alexandria (\u00a7 53, 3), and of\n =Bal\u00e4us=, about A.D. 430, we possess only a number of liturgical\n odes, which are not altogether destitute of poetic merit.\n This cannot, however, be said of the poetic works of =Isaac of\n Antioch=, who died about A.D. 460, filled with frigid polemics\n against Nestorius and Eutyches, of which their Catholic editor\n (Opp. ed. G. Bickell, Giess., 1873 f.) has to confess they are\n thoroughly \u201cinsipid, flat and wearisome, and move backwards and\n forwards in endless tautologies.\u201d Less empty and tiresome are\n the poetic effusions of the famous =Jacob of Sarug=, who died\n in A.D. 521; biblical stories, metrical homilies, hymns, etc.\n Most of the numerous liturgical odes are the compositions of\n unknown authors.\n\n \u00a7 48.8. =The Legendary History of Cyprian.=--At the basis of the\n poetic rendering of this legend in 3 bks. by the Empress Eudocia,\n about A.D. 440, lay three little works in prose, still extant in\n the Greek original and in various translations. In early youth\n Cyprian, impelled by an insatiable craving after knowledge, power\n and enjoyment, seeks to obtain all the wisdom of the Greeks, all\n the mysteries of the East, and for this purpose travels through\n Greece, Egypt, and Chald\u00e6a. But when he gets all this he is\n not satisfied; he makes a compact with the devil, to whom he\n unreservedly surrenders himself, who in turn places at his\n disposal now a great multitude of demons, and promises to make\n him hereafter one of his chief princes. Then comes he to Antioch.\n There Aglaidas, an eminent heathen sophist, who in vain abandoned\n all to win the love of a maiden named Justina, who had taken\n vows of perpetual virginity, calls in his magical arts, in order\n thereby to gain the end so ardently desired. Cyprian enters into\n the affair all the more eagerly since he himself also meanwhile\n has entertained a strong passion for the fair maiden. But the\n demons sent by him, at last the devil himself, are forced to flee\n from her, through her calling on the name of Jesus and making\n the sign of the cross, and are obliged to own their powerlessness\n before the Christians\u2019 God. Now Cyprian repents, repudiates his\n covenant with the devil, lays before an assembly of Antiochean\n Christians a confession inspired by the most profound despairing\n sorrow of the innumerable mischiefs wrought by him with the help\n of the demons, is comforted by the Christians present by means\n of consolatory words of scripture, receives baptism, enters\n the ranks of the clergy as reader, passes quickly through the\n various clerical offices, and suffers the death of a martyr\n as bishop of Antioch, along with Justina, under the Emperor\n Claudius II.--Gregory Nazianzen too in a discourse delivered at\n Constantinople in A.D. 379, \u201con the day of the holy martyr and\n bishop Cyprian,\u201d treated of the legend, in which without more ado\n he identifies the converted Antiochean sorcerer with the famous\n Carthaginian bishop of that name, and makes him suffer martyrdom\n under Decius (?).--The romance may have borrowed the name of its\n hero from an old wizard; but his type of character is certainly\n to be looked for in the philosophico-theurgical efforts of\n the Syrio-Neoplatonic school of Iamblichus (\u00a7 24, 2), in which\n the then expiring heathenism gathered up its last energies\n for conflict with victorious Christianity. The conception of\n the heroine on the other hand, is with slight modifications\n borrowed from the Thecla legend (\u00a7 32, 6). By the _Legenda aurea_\n (\u00a7 104, 8), which is just an adaptation of this earlier one,\n the legend of Cyprian was carried down even beyond the time of\n the Reformation. Calderon\u2019s \u201cWonder-working Magician\u201d presents\n a Spanish-Catholic, as the Faustus legend of the 16th century\n presents a German Protestant construction, which latter, however,\n in direct opposition to the tendency of the early Christian\n legend, allows the magician to drop into hell because his\n repentance came too late. The Romish Church, however, still\n maintains the historical genuineness of the old legend, and\n celebrates both of the supposed saints on one day, 25th September.\n\n\n\n\n IV. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES AND HERESIES.\n\n\n \u00a7 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY.\n\n When a considerable fulness of Christian doctrine had already in\nprevious periods found subjective and therefore variously diversified\ndevelopment, it had now, besides being required by the altered condition\nof things, become necessary that the church should sift and confirm\nwhat was already developed or was still in the course of development.\nThe endeavour after universal scientific comprehension and accurate\ndefinition became stronger every day. The lively intercourse between\nthe churches, which prevented the various doctrinal types from being\nrestricted to particular countries, brought opposite views into contact\nand conflict with one another. The court, the people, the monks took\nparts, and so the church became the scene of passionate and distracting\nstruggles, which led to the issuing of a canon of orthodoxy recognised\nby the whole Catholic church of the West and of the East, and to the\nbranding every deviation therefrom with the mark of heresy.\n\n The =Heresies= of the previous period were mainly of a syncretic\n kind (\u00a7 26). Those of the period now under consideration have\n an evolutionary or formatory character. They consist in the\n construction of the system of doctrine by exclusive attention\n and extreme estimation of the one side of the Christian\n truth that is being developed, which thus passes over into\n errors; while it is the task of orthodoxy to give proportionate\n development to both sides and to bring them into harmony. Of\n syncratic heresies only sporadic traces from the previous period\n are found in this (\u00a7 54). The third possible form of heresies is\n the revolutionary or reformatory. Heretics of this class fancy\n that they see in the developed and fixed system of the Catholic\n church excrescences and degenerations which either do not exist,\n so that by their removal the church is injured and hindered in\n her essential and normal functions, or do really exist, but for\n the most part are not now duly distinguished from the results of\n sound and normal development, so that the good would be removed\n with the bad. During the period under consideration only isolated\n instances of this kind of heresy are met with (\u00a7 62).\n\n\n \u00a7 50. THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY, A.D. 318-381.[150]\n\n The series of doctrinal contendings opened with the Trinitarian or\nArian controversy. It first of all dealt with the nature and being\nof the Logos become man in Christ and the relation of this Logos to\nthe Father. From the time of the controversy of the two Dionysiuses\n(\u00a7 33, 7) the idea of the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father\nhad found supporters even in Alexandria and a new school was formed\nwith it as the fundamental doctrine (\u00a7 47, 1). But the fear excited\nby Sabellius and the Samosatians (\u00a7 33, 8), that the acknowledgment\nof the Homoousia might lead to Monarchianism, caused a strong reaction\nand doomed many excellent fathers to the bonds of subordinationism.\nIt was pre-eminently the school of the Antiochean Lucian (\u00a7 31, 9)\nthat furnished able contenders against the Homoousia. In Origen the\ntwo contraries, subordination and the eternal generation from the\nsubstance of the Father, had been still maintained together (\u00a7 33, 6).\nNow they are brought forward apart from one another. On the one side,\nAthanasius and his party repudiate subordination but hold firmly by\nthe eternal generation, and perfected their theory by the adoption\nof the Homoousia; but on the other side, Arius and his party gave up\nthe eternal generation, and held fast to the subordination, and went\nto the extreme of proclaiming the Heteroousia. A third intermediate\nparty, the semi-Arians, mostly Origenists, wished to bind the separated\ncontraries together with the newly discovered cement of the \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1.\nIn the further course of the controversies that now broke out and raged\nthroughout the whole church for almost a century, the question of the\ntrinitarian position of the Holy Spirit was of necessity dragged into\nthe discussion. After various experiences of victory and discomfiture,\nthe Homoousia of the Son and of the Spirit was at last affirmed and\nbecame the watchword of inviolable orthodoxy.\n\n \u00a7 50.1. =Preliminary Victory of the Homoousia,\n A.D. 318-325=--=Arius=, a disciple of Lucian, from A.D. 313\n presbyter at Alexandria, a man of clear intellect and subtle\n critical spirit, was in A.D. 318 charged with the denial of the\n divinity of Christ, because he publicly taught that while the\n Son was indeed before all time yet He was not from eternity (\u1f26\u03bd\n \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26\u03bd), that by the will of the Father (\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6) He\n was created out of nothing (\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd), and that by\n His mediating activity the world was called into being; as the\n most perfect created image of the Father and as executor of the\n Divine plan of creation, He might indeed in an inexact way be\n called \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. =Alexander=, bishop of Alexandria at that\n time, who maintained the doctrine of the eternal generation and\n consubstantiality, convened a synod at Alexandria in A.D. 321,\n which condemned the doctrine of Arius and deposed him. But the\n people, who revered him as a strict ascetic, and many bishops,\n who shared his views, took part with him. He also applied for\n protection to famous bishops in other places, especially to his\n former fellow student (\u03a3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) Eusebius of Nicomedia,\n and to the very influential Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea (\u00a7 47, 2).\n The former unreservedly declared himself in favour of the\n Arian doctrine; the latter regarded it as at least not dangerous.\n Arius spread his views among the people by means of popular songs\n for men of various crafts and callings, for millers, sailors,\n travellers, etc. In this way a serious schism spread through\n almost all the East. In Alexandria the controversy was carried\n on so passionately that the pagans made it the subject of reproach\n in the theatre. When Constantine the Great received news of\n this general commotion he was greatly displeased. He commanded,\n fruitlessly, as might be expected, that all needless quarrels\n (\u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2) should be avoided. Hosius, bishop of Cord\u014fva,\n who carried the imperial injunction to Alexandria, learnt the\n state of matters there and the serious nature of the conflict,\n and brought the emperor to see the matter in another light.\n Constantine now summoned in A.D. 325 an =\u0152cumenical Council at\n Nic\u00e6a=, where he himself and 318 bishops met. The majority, with\n Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea at their head, were Origenists and sought,\n as did also the =Eusebians=, the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia,\n to mediate between the opposing views, the latter, however,\n being much more favourable to the Arians. The maintainers of the\n Homoousia were in a decided minority, but the vigorous eloquence\n of the young deacon =Athanasius=, whom Alexander brought with\n him, and the favour of the emperor, secured complete ascendancy\n to their doctrine. Upon the basis of the baptismal formula\n proposed by Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea to his own congregation, a new\n confession of faith was sketched out, which was henceforth used\n to mark the limits of this trinitarian discussion. In this creed\n several expressions were avoided which, though biblical, had\n been understood by the Arians in a sense of their own, such as\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, and in their\n place strictly Homoousian formul\u00e6 were substituted, \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af; while with\n added anathemas those entertaining opposite views were condemned.\n This was the =Symbolum Nic\u00e6num=. Arius was excommunicated and\n his writings condemned to be burnt. Dread of deposition and love\n of peace induced many to subscribe who were not convinced. Only\n Arius himself and two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus,\n refused and went into exile to Illyria. Also Eusebius of Nicomedia\n and Theognis of Nic\u00e6a, who subscribed the Symbol but refused to\n sign the anathematizing formula, were three months afterwards\n banished to Gaul.[151]\n\n \u00a7 50.2. =Victory of Eusebianism, A.D. 328-356.=--This unity\n under the Nicene Symbol was merely artificial and could not\n therefore be enduring. The emperor\u2019s dying sister Constantia and\n the persuasion of distinguished bishops induced Constantine to\n return to his earlier view of the controversy. Arius agreed to\n a Confession drawn up in general terms and was, along with the\n other banished ones, restored in A.D. 328. Soon thereafter, in\n A.D. 330, the emperor commanded that Arius should be restored to\n office. But meanwhile, in A.D. 328, Athanasius himself had become\n bishop and replied with unfaltering determination that he would\n not comply. The emperor threatened him with deposition, but by\n a personal conference Athanasius made such an impression upon him\n that he gave way. The enemies of Athanasius, however, especially\n the Meletians driven on by Eusebius of Nicomedia (\u00a7 41, 4),\n ceased not to excite suspicion about him as a disturber of the\n peace, and got the emperor to reopen the question at a Synod at\n Tyre, in A.D. 335. consisting of pure Arians. Athanasius appealed\n against its verdict of deposition. A new Synod was convened\n at Constantinople in A.D. 335 and the emperor banished him to\n Treves in A.D. 336. It was now enjoined that, notwithstanding\n the opposition of the bishop of Constantinople, Arius should\n be there received back again into church fellowship, but on\n the evening before the day appointed he died suddenly, being\n over eighty years old. Constantine the Great soon followed him,\n A.D. 337, and Constantine II. restored Athanasius to his church\n which received him with enthusiasm. Constantius, however, was\n decidedly favourable to the Eusebians, and this gave tone to the\n court and to the capital where in all the streets and markets,\n in all the shops and houses, the questions referred to were\n considered and discussed. The Eastern bishops for the most part\n vacillated between the two extremes and let themselves be led by\n Eusebius of Nicomedia. He and his party managed for a time to set\n aside the Homoousian formula and yet to preserve an appearance of\n orthodoxy. Eusebius, who from A.D. 338 was bishop in the capital,\n died in A.D. 341, but his party continued to intrigue in his\n spirit. The whole West, on the other hand, was strictly Nic\u00e6an.\n The Eusebians in A.D. 340 opened a Council at Antioch, which\n anew deposed Athanasius, and put in his place a rude Cappadocian,\n Gregorius [Gregory]. Athanasius fled to Rome, where a Council\n under bishop Julius in A.D. 341 solemnly acknowledged his\n orthodoxy and innocence. A new Council convened at Antioch in\n A.D. 340 for the consecration of a church, sketched four creeds\n one after another, approaching indeed, in order to conciliate\n the West, as closely as possible that of Nic\u00e6a, but carefully\n avoiding the term \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. In the interests of unity Constantius\n and Constans jointly convened an \u0152cumenical Council at Sardica in\n Illyria in A.D. 344. But when the Westerns under the presidency\n of Hosius, disregarding the Antiochean anathema, allowed a seat\n and vote to Athanasius, the Easterns withdrew and formed an\n opposition Council at Philippopolis in Thrace. At Sardica where\n important privileges were granted to the Roman bishop Julius\n (\u00a7 46, 3), the Nicene creed was renewed and Athanasius was\n restored. Constantius, after Gregorius [Gregory] had died, who\n meanwhile had become doubly hated because of his violent deeds,\n confirmed Athanasius\u2019 restoration, and the Alexandrian church\n received again their old pastor with shouts of joy. But after the\n death of Constans in A.D. 350, Constantius was again won over to\n the side of the Arians. They assembled at the Council of Sirmium\n in Pannonia in A.D. 351, where, however, they did not strike\n directly at Athanasius but at first only at a friend of his who\n presented to them a weak spot. The bishop =Marcellus of Ancyra=\n in Galatia by his zealous defence of the Nicene _Homoousia_ had\n been betrayed into the use of Sabellian expressions and views.\n At a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 336 he was on this account\n suspended, and then contended with by Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea in the\n course of this Council; but in the West and at the Council of\n Sardica he had been defended. Afterwards, however, one of his\n own scholars =Photinus=, bishop of Sirmium, had drifted into\n unmistakable, and indeed into dynamic Monarchianism (\u00a7 33, 1).\n His doctrine had been already rejected as heretical at a Council\n at Antioch in A.D. 344 and also in the West at a distinctly\n Nic\u00e6an Council at Milan in A.D. 345. The Council of Sirmium\n now formally deposed him and with his condemned also Marcellus\u2019\n doctrine.[152] The Eusebians, however, were not satisfied with\n this. So soon as Constantius by the conquest of the usurper\n Magnentius got an absolutely free hand, he arranged at their\n instigation for two Eusebian Synods, one at Arles in Gaul,\n A.D. 353, the other at Milan, A.D. 355, where Athanasius was\n again condemned. The emperor now commanded that all Western\n bishops should subscribe his condemnation. Those who refused were\n deposed and banished. Among them were, the Roman bishop Liberius,\n Hosius of Cordova, Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli,\n and Lucifer of Cal\u0103ris [Calaris]. And now a second Gregorius\n [Gregory], a Cappadocian, not less rude and passionate than the\n first, was forcibly installed bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius\n performed the service in a quiet and dignified manner, and then\n withdrew to the monks in the Egyptian desert in A.D. 356. Thus\n it seemed that Arianism in the modified or rather concealed form\n of Eusebianism had secured a final victory throughout the whole\n range of the Roman Empire.\n\n \u00a7 50.3. =Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357-361.=--The Eusebians\n now, however, fell out among themselves. The more extreme party,\n with the Antiochean deacon A\u00ebtius and bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus\n at their head, carried their heresy so far as to declare that\n the Son is unlike to the Father (\u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2). They were hence\n called =Anom\u0153ans=, also _Exucontians_ (\u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd). But also\n the distinctly moderate party, called =semi-Arians=[153] or\n _Homoiousians_, from their adoption of the formula \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n made preparations for a decisive conflict. At their head stood\n Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Constantius too was favourable\n to them. But the intriguing court bishops, Ursacius and Valens,\n strictly Arian at heart, knew how to gain their ends by secret\n paths. With the emperor\u2019s consent they held a second Council at\n Sirmium in A.D. 357, where it was resolved to avoid wholly the\n non-biblical phrase \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, which caused all the contention, to\n abandon all definitions of the nature of God which to man is\n incomprehensible, and to unite upon the simple formula, that\n the Son is _like_ the Father (\u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 hence the name =Homoians=).\n Hosius of Cordova, facile through age and sufferings, bought his\n reprieve by subscription. He died, after a bitter repentance,\n in A.D. 361, when almost a hundred years old. The rest of\n the Westerns, however, at the Synod of Agenum renewed their\n Nicene Confession; the semi-Arians under Basil at Ancyra their\n Antiochean Confession. The latter, too, found access to the\n emperor, who let their Confession be confirmed at a third Synod\n at Sirmium in A.D. 358, and obliged the court bishops to sign it.\n The latter then came to a compromise with the semi-Arians in the\n formula: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Liberius of Rome, too, worn out with three\n years\u2019 exile, agreed to sign this symbol and ventured to return\n to Rome (\u00a7 46, 4). The formula pleased the emperor so well that\n he decided to have it confirmed by an \u0153cumenical Council. But in\n order to prevent the dreaded combination of the Homoousians and\n Homoiousians in the West, Ursacius and Valens contrived to have\n two Councils instead of one, an Eastern Council at Seleucia and\n a Western Council at Rimini, A.D. 359. Both rejected the formula\n of Sirmium; the Easterns holding by that of Antioch, the Westerns\n by that of Nic\u00e6a. But Ursacius knew how by cunning intrigues to\n weary them out. When the bishops had spent two years at Seleucia\n and Rimini, which seemed to them no better than banishment, and\n their messengers after a half year\u2019s journey had not succeeded\n in obtaining an audience of the emperor, they at last subscribed\n the _Homoian_ symbol. Those who refused, A\u00ebtius and Eunomius,\n were persecuted as disturbers of the church\u2019s peace. Thus\n the Homoian creed prevailed through the whole Roman empire.\n Constantius\u2019 death, however, in A.D. 361, soon broke up this\n artificial bond.\n\n \u00a7 50.4. =Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361-381.=--Julian\n gave equal rights to all parties and recalled all the banished\n bishops, so that many churches had two or three bishops.\n Athanasius also returned. For the restoration of church order\n he called a Synod at Alexandria in A.D. 362, and here in the\n exercise of a gentle and wise temper he received back into church\n fellowship the penitent Arian bishops, in spite of the protest\n of the strict zealot Lucifer of Calaris. The happy results of\n Athanasius\u2019 procedure led the emperor again to banish him, on the\n pretext that he was a disturber of the peace. Julian\u2019s successor,\n Jovian, was favourable to the Nicene doctrine and immediately\n restored Athanasius, A.D. 364, meanwhile extending toleration\n to the Arians. But Valens, to whom his brother Valentinian I.\n surrendered the East, A.D. 364-378, proved a zealous Arian. He\n raged with equal violence against the Athanasians and against\n the semi-Arians, and thus drove the two into close relations\n with one another. Athanasius was obliged to flee, but ventured\n after four months to return, and lived in peace to the end of\n his days. He died in A.D. 373. Valens was meanwhile restricted\n in his persecutions on two sides, by the pressing representations\n of his brother Valentinian, and by the manly resistance of\n eminent bishops, especially the three Cappadocians (\u00a7 47, 4).\n The machinations of the Western empress Justinia, during\n the minority of her son Valentinian II., were successfully\n checkmated by Ambrose of Milan. He passively but victoriously\n opposed the soldiers who were to take possession of his church\n for the Arians by a congregation praying and singing psalms.\n Theodosius the Great gave its deathblow to Arianism. He called\n Gregory Nazianzen to the patriarchal chair at Constantinople.\n To Gregory also at a subsequent time he assigned the presidency\n of the so-called =Second \u0152cumenical Council at Constantinople\n in A.D. 381=.[154]--When, however, his patriarchate was attacked,\n because he had changed his bishopric (\u00a7 45), he resigned\n his office. No new Symbol was here drawn up, but only the\n Nicene Symbol was confirmed as irrefragable. On the so-called\n Nic\u00e6an-Constantinopolitan Symbol, comp. \u00a7 59, 2. After this\n the Arians ventured only to hold services outside of the cities.\n Subsequently all churches in the empire were taken from them.--The\n Constantinopolitan Council of A.D. 381 did not fairly represent\n parties. Being called by the then merely Eastern emperor, and\n so consisting only of Eastern bishops, it was not properly an\n \u0153cumenical synod, and for a long time even in the East itself was\n not regarded as such. Still it was of importance to the bishop of\n Constantinople that it should have this rank, and his endeavours\n were favoured by the circumstance that it had been called\n by Theodosius who was honoured both in East and West as Sole\n Potentate and \u201csecond Constantine.\u201d After the Council of\n Chalcedon in A.D. 451 (\u00a7 46, 1) the whole East was unanimous\n in recognising it. The West, however, at least Rome, still\n rejected it, until finally under Justinian I., in consequence\n of the Roman chair becoming dependent upon the Byzantine court\n (\u00a7 46, 9), the dispute was here no longer agitated.\n\n \u00a7 50.5. =The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362-381.=--Arius and the\n Arians had described the Holy Spirit as the first creature\n produced by the Son. But even zealous defenders of the Homoousia\n of the Son vacillated. The Nicene Symbol was satisfied with\n a bare \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; and even Hilary of Poitiers,\n avoiding all exact definition, contented himself with recording\n the phrases of Scripture. But Athanasius, at the Synod of\n Alexandria in A.D. 362, Didymus the Blind, and the three\n Cappadocians, consistently applied their idea of the Homoousia\n to the Spirit and won the adhesion of the Nicene theologians.\n It was hardest for the semi-Arians who had accepted the\n Nicene platform, at whose head stood Macedonius, bishop\n of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the Homoians\n in A.D. 360, to acquiesce in this conclusion (Macedonians,\n Pneumatomachians). The so-called second \u0153cumenical Council\n of A.D. 381 sanctioned in a now lost doctrinal \u201cTome\u201d the full\n Homoousia of the Holy Spirit. The West had already in A.D. 380\n at a Roman Synod under the presidency of Bishop Damasus condemned\n in 24 anathemas, along with all other trinitarian errors, every\n sort of opposition to the perfect Homoousia of the Spirit.[155]\n\n \u00a7 50.6. =The Literature of the Controversy.=--Arius himself\n developed his doctrine in a half poetical writing, the \u0398\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,\n fragments of which are given by Athanasius. Arianism found a\n zealous apologist in the Sophist Asterius, whose treatise is lost.\n The church historian, Philostorgius (\u00a7 5, 1), sought to vindicate\n it historically. On the semi-Arian side Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea wrote\n against Marcellus--\u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 and \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. The \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 of Eunomius is lost. Among the\n opponents of Arianism, Athanasius occupies by a long way the\n first place (IV. Orations against the Arians, Ep. concerning\n Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, Hist. of Arians to the Monks,\n Apology against the Arians, etc., all included in Hist. Tracts\n of Athanasius, \u201cLib. of Fath.,\u201d 2 vols., Oxf., 1843 f.). On the\n works of Apollinaris belonging to this controversy see \u00a7 47, 5.\n Basil the Great wrote 4 bks. against Eunomius; \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Ad Amphilochium, against the Pneumatomachians.\n Gregory Nazianzen wrote five \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af. Gregory of Nyssa\n 12 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u0395\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. Didymus the Blind, 3 bks.\n _De Trinitate_. Epiphanius, the \u1f08\u03b3\u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Cyril of Alexandria\n a \u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. Chrysostom\n delivered twelve addresses against the Anomoians. Theodoret\n wrote _Dialogi VII. d. s. Trinitate_. Ephra\u00ebm [Ephraim] Syrus,\n too, combated the Arians frequently in his sermons. Among the\n Latins the most celebrated polemists are: Lucifer of Calaris\n (_Ad Constantium p. Lb. II. pro Athen._); Hilary of Poitiers\n (_De Trinitate Lb. I., de Synodus s. de fide Orientalium, contra\n Constantium Aug._; _C. Auxentium_); Ph\u0153badius, bishop of Agenum\n about A.D. 359 (_C. Arianos_); Ambrose (_De fide ad Gratianum\n Aug. Lb. V._); Augustine (_C. Sermonem Arianorum_; _Collatio\n cum Maximo Arianorum episc._; _C. Maximinum_); Fulgentius of\n Ruspe (_C. Arianos_, and 3 bks. against the Arian Vandal king\n Thrasimund).\n\n \u00a7 50.7. =Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma.=--Even the\n Nicene Symbol did not completely surmount every trace of\n subordinationism. It is at least capable of a subordinationist\n interpretation when the Father alone is called \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and so\n identified with the Monas. Augustine completely surmounted this\n defect (_De Trinitate Lb. XV._). The personality of the Spirit,\n too, as well as His relation to the Father and the Son, had not\n yet been determined. A step was taken towards the formulating of\n the doctrine of the Spirit\u2019s personality by the acknowledgment\n in the now lost Tome of the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381\n of the full Homoousia of the Spirit with the Father and the\n Son.[156] But the doctrine of the Spirit\u2019s relations to Father\n and Son still continued undetermined and even by the addition\n (to the \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd. \u1f05\u03b3.) of: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c5\u1f31\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd in the so-called _Symbolum Nic.-Constant._\n (\u00a7 59, 2), a definition so incomplete was obtained, that even\n five hundred years afterwards the great schism that rent the\n church into an Eastern and a Western division found in this\n its doctrinal basis (\u00a7 67, 1). Augustine, too, had meanwhile\n come forward with a further development of this doctrine,\n and taught in his speculation upon the Spirit that He proceeded\n from the Son as well as from the Father (John xv. 26).\n Fulgentius of Ruspe was the next most famous representative\n of the further development of the dogma (_De s. Trinitate_).\n The so-called Athanasian Creed (\u00a7 59, 2) simply adopted this\n advanced development in the proposition: _qui procedit a\n Patre et Filio_. Similarly the _Filioque_ is found also in the\n so-called Nic.-Constant. Creed laid before the Synod of Toledo\n in A.D. 589 (\u00a7 76, 2).--Continuation \u00a7 67, 1; \u00a7 91, 2.\n\n \u00a7 50.8. =Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy.=\n\n I. =The Meletian Schism at Antioch.= The Arians at Antioch\n had already in A.D. 330 driven away Eustathius, the bishop\n of the see, who favoured the Nicene doctrine. A portion\n of his people, however, remained attached to him and\n Homoousianism under the leadership of the Presbyter\n Paulinus, and were called Eustathians. When in A.D. 360\n Eudoxius, the Arian bishop, left Antioch, in order to\n take possession of the episcopal chair of the capital,\n his former congregation chose Meletius, bishop of Sebaste,\n formerly a Eusebian, but for some time friendly to the\n Nicene party, as his successor. His first sermon, however,\n served to undeceive those who had chosen him, so that after\n a few weeks they drove him away and put Euzoius, a decided\n Arian, in his place. Yet he had already won a following\n in the congregation which, when Julian\u2019s succession made\n it possible for him to return, took him back as bishop.\n Athanasius and the Alexandrian Synod of A.D. 362 had\n meanwhile made every effort to reconcile these Meletians\n and the Eustathians and to unite them under the banner of\n Nic\u00e6anism. But Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, sent to Antioch\n for this purpose, confirmed the schism instead of healing\n it by ordaining Paulinus bishop on the death of Eustathius\n in A.D. 360. The whole church now took sides, the East that\n of Meletius, the West along with Egypt, that of Paulinus.\n The Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 gave to Meletius\n the presidency as the oldest bishop present. When, after\n two days, he died, Gregory Nazianzen, his successor in the\n presidency, recommended that the next election should be\n postponed till the death of the aged Paulinus and that then\n both parties should join the election. It was, however, all\n in vain. Flavian was appointed successor to Meletius, and\n when Paulinus died in A.D. 388, the Presbyter Evagrius was\n chosen opposition bishop in his stead. Theodosius I., from\n A.D. 392 sole ruler, insisted upon the West recognising\n Flavian. But in Antioch itself the schism lasted down\n to the death of Evagrius. Finally, in A.D. 415, the\n able successor of Flavian, bishop Alexander, effected\n a reconciliation, by taking part on a feast day along with\n his congregation in the public worship of the Eustathians,\n joining with them in singing and prayer, and in this way\n won them over to join him in the principal church.\n\n II. =The Schism of the Luciferians.= After Lucifer by his\n irrational zeal had caused so much discord in Antioch,\n he returned in A.D. 362 to Alexandria, and there protested\n against Athanasius for receiving back penitent Arians and\n semi-Arians. He and his fanatical adherents formed the\n sect of Luciferians, which renewed the Novatianist demands\n for Church purity, and continued to exist down to the fifth\n century.\n\n III. On the =Schism of Damasus and Ursacius at Rome=, see\n \u00a7 46, 4.\n\n\n \u00a7 51. THE ORIGENIST CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 394-438.\n\n Naturally and necessarily the Christological are closely connected\nwith the Trinitarian controversies (\u00a7 52). But between the two comes in\nanother controversy, the Origenistic, which was indeed more of personal\nthan of ecclesiastical interest, but still strengthened the church in\nthe conviction that Origen was an arch-heretic.\n\n \u00a7 51.1. =The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts.=--The most\n distinguished defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius, the three\n Cappadocians, Didymus, Hilary, etc., had all held Origen in high\n esteem. But the constant references of the Arians to his authority\n brought him into discredit, not only among the more narrow-minded\n opposers of Arius, especially in the West, but also among the\n monks of the Scetic desert in Egypt, with Pachomius at their\n head. These repudiated the speculation of Origen as the source\n of all heresy, and in their views of God and divine things\n adopted a crude anthropomorphism. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis,\n also belonged originally to this party (\u00a7 47, 10). In direct\n opposition to them, another Egyptian monkish order in the Nitrian\n desert adhered to Origen with enthusiastic reverence and occupied\n themselves in a pious contemplative mysticism that tended to a\n somewhat extreme spiritualism.\n\n \u00a7 51.2. =The Controversy in Palestine and Italy,\n A.D. 394-399.=--In Palestine Origen had a warm supporter in\n =bishop of Jerusalem=, and in the two Latins =Jerome= and\n =Rufinus= who were staying there (\u00a7 47, 16, 17). But when\n in A.D. 394 a couple of Westerns who happened to come there\n expressed their surprise, Jerome, anxious for his reputation\n for orthodoxy, was at once prepared to condemn the errors of\n Origen. Meanwhile the Scetic monks had called the attention\n of the old zealot =Epiphanius= to the Palestinian nursery of\n heresy. Immediately he made his way thither and took advantage\n of John\u2019s friendly invitation to occupy his pulpit by preaching\n a violent sermon against Origenism. John then preached against\n anthropomorphism. Epiphanius pronounced an anathema against that\n tendency but desired John to do the same in regard to Origenism.\n When John refused, then Epiphanius, together with Jerome and the\n Bethlehemite monks withdrew from communion with John and Rufinus,\n and invaded John\u2019s episcopal rights by ordaining a presbyter\n over the Bethlehemite monks. Now sprang up a violent controversy,\n which Theophilus of Alexandria, by sending the presbyter Isidore,\n sought to allay. Jerome and Rufinus were reconciled at the altar\n in A.D. 396. The latter soon again returned to the West. He\n translated, omitting objectionable passages, Origen\u2019s work \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd, and was indiscreet enough to remark in the preface that\n even the orthodox Jerome was an admirer of Origen. Stirred up\n by his Roman friends, Jerome began with unmeasured violence\n a passionate polemic against Origenism and the friend of his\n youth. He produced at the same time a literal rendering, no\n longer extant, of the \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd. Rufinus replied with equal\n bitterness, and the passion displayed by both led to further\n causes of offence. The Roman bishop Siricius took part with\n Rufinus, but his successor Anastasius summoned him to answer\n for his opinions at Rome. Rufinus did not appear, but sent\n an apology which so little satisfied Anastasius that he rather\n consented to send letters to John of Jerusalem and other oriental\n bishops in condemnation of Origenism, A.D. 399. Rufinus withdrew\n to Aquileia and there continued to translate the writings of\n Origen and others of the Greeks.\n\n \u00a7 51.3. =The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople,\n A.D. 399-438.=--=Theophilus=, patriarch of Alexandria, a pompous,\n ambitious and strong-handed ecclesiastical prince, had down to\n A.D. 399 been on good terms with the Origenist monks and even\n in the Easter address of that year expressed himself in strong\n terms against the heresy of the anthropomorphists. The monks rose\n in rebellion over this, attacked him with clubs and forced him\n to pronounce an anathema upon Origen. Soon thereafter he had a\n personal dispute with his former friends. The aged and venerable\n presbyter Isidore and the four so-called \u201clong brothers,\u201d \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u1f76\n \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, two of whom served in his church as _\u0153conomi_, refused to\n pay him pupils\u2019 and legates\u2019 money and fled from his passionate\n displeasure to their companions in the Nitrian desert. In\n A.D. 399, however, at an endemic Synod at Alexandria he condemned\n Origen, and in A.D. 401 published a violent manifesto against\n the Origenists.[157] The noble but shortsighted Epiphanius\n approved it and Jerome hastened to translate it into Latin. With\n rude military force the Nitrian monks were scattered and driven\n away. Persecuted by the warrants issued by the patriarch, they\n sought protection from bishop =John Chrysostom= at Constantinople\n (\u00a7 47, 8), whose intercession, however, Theophilus contemptuously\n rejected. For peace sake Chrysostom now wished to retire. But the\n monks found access to the Empress Eudoxia, and upon her appeal\n to the Emperor Arcadius, Theophilus was cited before a Synod at\n Constantinople over which Chrysostom presided. Theophilus foamed\n with rage. He succeeded by misrepresentation of the facts to win\n to his side the zealot Epiphanius. The noble old man hasted full\n of zeal and prejudice to Constantinople, but coming to see things\n in their true light, he withdrew from them with the words, \u201cI\n leave to you the court and hypocrisy.\u201d Theophilus, however, knew\n well how to get on with the court and hypocrisy. Chrysostom,\n by severe and searching preaching, had aroused the anger of\n the Empress. Relying upon this, Theophilus landed with a great\n retinue at Constantinople, and organized at the Empress\u2019s estate\n of Drus, the Oak, near Chalcedon, a Council, _Synodus ad Quercum_,\n A.D. 403, which pronounced Chrysostom guilty of immorality,\n offences against the church and high treason. The Emperor\n condemned him to exile. Chrysostom soothed the people excited\n in his favour, and allowed himself quietly to be sent away. A\n violent earthquake, however, next night and the incontrollable\n excitement of the populace, led the Emperor to entreat the\n exile by special messenger immediately to return. After three\n days\u2019 absence he had a triumphal entrance again into the city.\n Theophilus fled precipitately to Alexandria. Soon thereafter\n Chrysostom very solemnly denounced the noisy inauguration of\n a statue of the empress during the celebration of worship, and\n when on this account her rage flamed up against him afresh, the\n unfortunate words were uttered by him in a sermon on the day of\n John the Baptist: \u03a0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f29\u03c1\u03c9\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. Now the game\n was again in Theophilus\u2019 favour. His party fanned the flame at\n the court. During the Easter vigils, A.D. 404, armed men burst\n into the church of Chrysostom and carried him away an exile to\n Cucusus in Armenia. With heroic courage he bore all the miseries\n of the journey, the climate and the wild lawless neighbourhood.\n With his people from the place of his banishment he maintained\n regular pastoral intercourse.--Soon after the outbreak of\n the conflict, Theophilus as well as Chrysostom had diligently\n sought to obtain the support of the West. Both sent letters and\n messengers to Rome, Milan and Aquileia, seeking to justify their\n cases before the churches. Innocent I. of Rome urged the deciding\n of the controversy at an \u0153cumenical Council, but did not carry\n his point. After the disgraceful banishment of Chrysostom the\n whole West took his side, and Innocent got Honorius to apply to\n Arcadius for his recall; but the only result was that in A.D. 407\n he was sent to still more severe banishment at Pityus, on the\n Black Sea. He succumbed to the fatigues of the journey and\n died on the way with words on his lips that had been the motto\n of his life: \u0394\u03cc\u03be\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd. A great part of his\n congregation at Constantinople refused to acknowledge the new\n patriarch Arsacius and his successor Atticus, and continued apart,\n notwithstanding all persecutions, under the name of Johannites,\n until Theodosius II. in A.D. 438 fetched back with honour the\n bones of their revered pastor and laid them in the imperial vault.\n Amid personal animosities and embittered feelings the Origenist\n controversy was long lost to view, but we must return to it again\n further on (\u00a7 52, 6).[158]\n\n\n \u00a7 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.[159]\n\n In the Trinitarian controversy we dealt with the pre- and\nextra-historical existence of the Son of God, with His divine nature\nin itself; but now, at the crucial point of Christian speculation and\necclesiastical conflict, we come to treat of His historical existence\nas that of the incarnate Son of God, of the connection of the divine\nnature of the Logos with the human nature of the Son of Mary, and of\nthe mutual relations of both to one another. Even during the Arian\ncontroversy the conflict was begun, and while the church maintained\nagainst Arius the full divinity of Christ, it also affirmed against\nApollinaris the completeness of His humanity. In three further phases\nthis conflict was continued. In the Dyoprosopic controversy the church\nmaintained the unity of the Person of Christ against the Antiochean\nextreme represented by Nestorius, which hold both natures so far\napart that the result seemed to be two persons. In the Monophysite\ncontroversy the opposite extreme of the new Alexandrian school\nwas combated, which in the unity of the person lost sight of the\ndistinctness of the natures. In the Monothelite controversy a unionistic\neffort was resisted which indeed allowed the duality of natures to be\naffirmed nominally, but practically denied it by the acknowledgment of\nonly one will.\n\n \u00a7 52.1. =The Apollinarian Controversy,\n A.D. 362-381.=[160]--Previously the older _Modalists_, _e.g._,\n Beryllus and Sabellius, had taught that by the incarnation the\n Logos had received merely a human body. Marcellus shared this\n view; but also his antipodes Arius had adopted it in order\n to avoid postulating two creatures in Christ. Athanasius held\n by the doctrine of Origen, that the human soul in Christ is\n a necessary bond between the Logos and the body, as well as\n an organ for giving expression to the Logos through the body.\n At the Synod of Alexandria, A.D. 362, therefore, he obtained\n ecclesiastical sanction for the recognition of a complete human\n nature in Christ. =Apollinaris= of Laodicea (\u00a7 47, 5), who had\n helped to arrange for this Council, also disapproved of the\n expression \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, but yet thought that the doctrine of\n the completeness of the human nature must be denied. He was led\n to this position by his adoption of trichotomic principles. He\n maintained that Christ has taken merely a \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 with a \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2,\n and that the place of the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 (\u1f41 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) was represented\n in him by the divine Logos. If this were not so then, he thought,\n one must assume two persons in Christ or let Christ sink down\n to the position of a mere \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2. Only in this way\n too could absolute sinlessness be affirmed of him. On the other\n hand, Athanasius and the two Gregories saw that in this way\n the substantiality of the incarnation and the completeness of\n redemption were lost. The so-called second \u0153cumenical Council of\n A.D. 381 rejected the doctrine of Apollinaris, who with his party\n was excluded from the Church. The Apollinarians subsequently\n joined the Monophysites.\n\n \u00a7 52.2. =Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools.=--In\n consequence of the Arian controversy the perfect divinity, and in\n consequence of the Apollinarian controversy the perfect humanity,\n of Christ were finally established. On the relation between\n the two natures conditioned by the union there was definite\n result attained unto. Apollinaris had taught a connection of\n the divinity with the _incomplete_ manhood so intimate that\n he had unwittingly destroyed the duality of the natures, and\n by means of an \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd transferred the\n attributes of the one nature to the other; so that not only\n the body of Christ must have been deified and have been therefore\n worthy of worship, but also birth, suffering and death must be\n referred to His divinity. In his treatise: \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2,\n he teaches: \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\n \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and in the tract _De incarnatione Verbi_, wrongly\n attributed to Athanasius: \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\n \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd, \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9. So, too, in the Epistle\n ascribed to Julius of Rome. The =Alexandrian Theology=, although\n rejecting the mutilation of the human nature favoured by\n Apollinaris, sympathized with him in his love for the mystical,\n the inconceivable and the transcendental. In opposition to the\n Arian heresy it gave special emphasis to the divinity of Christ\n and taught a \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae of both natures. Only before the\n union and _in abstracto_ can we speak of two natures; after\n the incarnation and _in concreto_ we can speak only of one\n divine-human nature. Mary was therefore spoken of as the mother\n of God, \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. Athanasius in his treatise against Apollinaris\n acknowledged an \u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, and explained this \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 as a\n \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. The Cappadocians (\u00a7 47, 4) indeed expressly\n admitted two natures, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, but yet taught a commingling\n of them, \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, a \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd of the two natures,\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd, a \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 of the \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1. Cyril of\n Alexandria taught that the \u1f10\u03bd\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 was a \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, an\n incarnation in the proper sense. Christ consists \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd,\n but not \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9, _i.e._ only before the incarnation and\n _in abstracto_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd) can we speak of two\n natures. In the God-man two natures would be two subjects, and\n so there would be two Christs; the redeemer would then only be\n an \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and not a \u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, and could thus afford\n no guarantee of a complete redemption, etc. The =Antiochean\n Theology= (\u00a7 47, 8, 9), in opposition to Apollinaris, affirmed\n most emphatically the complete and unchangeable reality of the\n human nature of Christ at and after its union with the divine.\n It would therefore only admit of a \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 or a \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae,\n by which both are brought into the relation (\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) of common\n being and common action. Expressions like \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, seemed to the thinkers of this school\n blasphemous, or at least absurd. They acknowledged indeed that\n the \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be of Christ is worthy of adoration but only in so far as\n it is the organ of the redeeming Logos, not because in itself\n it shares in the divine attributes. The most developed form of\n this doctrine was presented by Theodore of Mopsuestia in strict\n connection with his anthropology and soteriology. The historical\n development of the God-man is with him the type and pattern of\n the historical redemption of mankind. Christ assumed a complete\n human nature, with all its sinful affections and tendencies,\n but he fought these down and raised His human nature by constant\n conflict and victory to that absolute perfection to which by the\n same way He leads us through the communication of His Spirit.\n He expressly guarded himself against the charge of making Christ\n into two persons: Christ is \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf, but not \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 for the human nature has in the incarnation renounced\n personality and independence.--Each of these two schools\n represented one side of the truth of the church\u2019s doctrine;\n in the union of the two sides the church proclaimed the full\n truth. On the other hand the two schools proceeded more and more\n one-sidedly to emphasise each its own side of the truth, and so\n tended toward positive error. Thus arose two opposite errors, the\n separating of the natures and the confusing of the natures, which\n the church rejected one after the other, and proclaimed the truth\n that lay at the root of both.--During this discussion arose the\n =Western Theology= as the regulator of the debate. So long as it\n dealt with the one-sided extreme of the Antiocheans it stood side\n by side with the Alexandrians. Augustine, _e.g._ used indeed the\n expression _mixture_, but in reality he explains the relation\n of both natures to one another quite in accordance with the\n afterwards settled orthodoxy. But when at last the method of\n exclusions reached the error of the Alexandrians, the Westerns\n turned quite as decidedly to the other side and maintained the\n union of the two sides of the truth (Leo the Great). The conflict\n attracted great attention when it broke out at first in the West,\n but it was so quickly settled that soon no trace of it remained.\n In Southern Gaul a monk Leporius came forward teaching the\n Antiochean doctrine of the union of the two natures. In A.D. 426\n he went to Africa, entered into conflict with Augustine, but\n retracted his errors almost immediately.\n\n \u00a7 52.3. =The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy,\n A.D. 428-444.=[161]--In A.D. 428 a monk of Antioch called\n =Nestorius=, a distinguished orator, was appointed patriarch of\n Constantinople. He was an eloquent and pious man but hasty and\n imprudent, with little knowledge of the world and human nature,\n and immoderately severe against heretics. The hatred of an\n unsuccessful rival in Constantinople called Proclus and the\n rivalry of the patriarch of Alexandria, who hated him not only as\n a rival but as an Antiochean, made the position of the unsupported\n monk a very hard one, and his protection of the expatriated\n Pelagians (\u00a7 53, 4) excited the Roman bishop C\u0153lestine against\n him. Anastasius, a presbyter brought with him by Nestorius,\n was annoyed at the frequent use of the expression \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 and\n preached against it. Nestorius took his part against people and\n monks, sentenced the monks who had insulted him personally to\n endure corporal punishment, and at an endemic Synod in A.D. 439\n condemned the doctrine objected to. And now Cyril of Alexandria\n (\u00a7 47, 6) entered the lists as champion of the Alexandrian\n dogmatics. He won to himself C\u0153lestine of Rome (\u00a7 46, 6), as\n well as bishops Memnon of Ephesus and Juvenalis [Juvenal] of\n Jerusalem, and at the court, Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II.\n A.D. 408-450); while the empress Eudocia (\u00a7 48, 5) and the Syrian\n bishops took the side of Nestorius. All conciliatory attempts\n were frustrated by the stiffness of the two patriarchs. C\u0153lestine\n of Rome in A.D. 430 demanded of Nestorius a recantation within\n ten days, and Cyril at a Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 430 produced\n twelve strong counterpropositions containing anathemas, which\n Nestorius answered immediately by twelve counteranathemas. Thus\n the controversy and the parties engaged in it became more and\n more violent. For its settlement the emperor called the so-called\n =Third= (properly =Second=, comp. \u00a7 50, 4) =\u0152cumenical Council\n at Ephesus in A.D. 431=. Nestorius enjoyed the decided favour\n of the emperor, the imperial plenipotentiary was his personal\n friend, and a portion of the emperor\u2019s bodyguard accompanied him\n to Ephesus. But Cyril appeared with a great retinue of bishops\n and a faithful guard of servants of the church and seamen, who\n should in case of need prove the correctness of the Alexandrian\n dogmatics with their fists. In addition Memnon of Ephesus had in\n readiness a crowd of clergy, monks and people from Asia Minor.\n Before the Roman legates and the Syrian bishops had arrived Cyril\n opened the Council without them with 200 bishops. Nestorianism\n was condemned, Nestorius excommunicated and deposed, and\n Cyril\u2019s anathematizing propositions adopted as the standard\n of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The Roman legate recognised the\n Council, but the imperial commissioner refused his approval;\n and the Syrian bishops, under the presidency of John of Antioch\n proceeded, on their arrival, to hold an opposition Council, which\n excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius of his own accord\n retired into a monastery. Meanwhile in Constantinople, at the\n instigation of Pulcheria, a popular tumult was raised in favour\n of Cyril. The emperor set aside all the three leaders, Nestorius,\n Cyril and Memnon, and authorised a mediating creed drawn up by\n Theodoret (\u00a7 47, 9) in which the \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 was recognised but an\n \u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 was affirmed. Cyril and Memnon still remained\n in their offices. They subscribed Theodoret\u2019s formula and John\n subscribed the condemnation of Nestorius, A.D. 433, who was\n deposed and given over to the vengeance of his enemies. Driven\n from his monastic retreat and in many ways ill-treated, he died\n in destitution in A.D. 440. The compromise of the two leaders\n called forth opposition on every side. The Syrian church\n was in revolt over their patriarch\u2019s betrayal of the person\n of Nestorius. John avenged himself by deposing his opponents.\n This had well-nigh been the fate of the noble Theodoret;\n but the patriarch exempted him from condemning the person\n of Nestorius in consideration of his condemnation of the\n doctrine.--The Egyptians also charged their patriarch with\n the denial of the true doctrine. He was at pains, however, to\n give proof of his zeal by the vindictiveness of his persecutions.\n Not without an eye to results he wrought to have the anathema\n of the church pronounced upon the heads of the Antiochean school,\n and one of their partisans, bishop Rabulas of Edessa, pounced\n upon the famous theological school at Edessa, at the head of\n which then stood the distinguished presbyter Ibas (\u00a7 47, 13).\n After the death of Rabulas, however, in A.D. 436, the school\n again rose to great eminence. Theodoret and Cyril meanwhile\n contended with one another in violent writings. Death closed\n the mouth of Cyril in A.D. 444. But Rabulas unweariedly sought\n out and burnt the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which\n Ibas had translated into Syriac. The latter published a letter\n to Maris bishop of Hardashir in Persia, which at a subsequent\n period obtained symbolical rank among the Nestorians, and Thomas\n Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis, wrought successfully for the spread\n of Nestorianism in the Persian church. In A.D. 489 the school of\n Edessa was again destroyed by order of the emperor Zeno. Teachers\n and scholars migrated to Persia, and founded at Nisibis a school\n that long continued famous. At a Synod in Seleucia in A.D. 499,\n under the patriarch Bab\u00e4us of Seleucia, the whole Persian\n church finally broke off from the orthodox church of the Roman\n empire (\u00a7 64, 2). They called themselves according to their\n ecclesiastical language Chaldean Christians. Their patriarch\n bore the title Jazelich, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2. The Nestorian church passed\n on from Persia into India, where its adherents, appropriating the\n old legend that the apostle Thomas had introduced Christianity\n into India (\u00a7 16, 4), called themselves Thomas-Christians.\n\n \u00a7 52.4. =The Monophysite Controversy.=\n\n I. =Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451.=--Cyril\u2019s successor was\n =Dioscurus=, who was inferior to his predecessor in\n acuteness, but in passionateness and tyrannical cruelty\n left him far behind. An old archimandrite in Constantinople\n called =Eutyches= taught not only that after His incarnation\n Christ had only one nature, but also that the body of\n Christ as the body of God is not of like substance with\n our own. The patriarch Domnus of Antioch accused him without\n success to Theodosius II., and Theodoret wrote against him\n a controversial treatise under the title \u1f18\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, in which he opposed the doctrine of Eutyches\n as a conglomeration of many heresies. Dioscurus now joined\n in the fray, and wrought upon the emperor, whose minister\n the eunuch Chrysaphius and whose consort Eudocia he had\n won over to his side, to pass severe measures against the\n Syrians, and especially Theodoret, whom the emperor forbade\n to pass beyond the range of his diocese. Eusebius, bishop\n of Doryl\u00e4um, in Phrygia, however, accused Eutyches before\n an endemic Synod at Constantinople, in A.D. 448, presided\n over by the patriarch Flavian. Eutyches, though under\n imperial protection, was nevertheless, upon his refusal\n to retract, excommunicated and deposed. He appealed to\n an \u0153cumenical Synod and betook himself to =Leo the Great=\n (\u00a7 46, 7) at Rome. Flavian also appeared before the Roman\n bishop. Leo took the side of Flavian, and in a letter to\n that patriarch developed with great acuteness and clearness\n the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. The emperor,\n however, convoked an \u0153cumenical Council at Ephesus, A.D. 449,\n at which Dioscurus presided, while Flavian and his party had\n no vote and Theodoret was not even present, but at which for\n the first time there was a representative of the monastic\n order in the person of the zealous monophysite, the Abbot\n Barsumas. The Council was conducted in an extremely arbitrary\n and violent manner. The doctrine of two natures was rejected,\n and when Eusebius stepped forward to defend it, the Egyptians\n shouted: Away with him! Burn him! Tear him in two pieces, as\n he has torn the Christ! Flavian as well as Eusebius appealed\n to the bishop of Rome; but the Synod pronounced on both the\n sentence of excommunication. When now some bishops sprang\n forward, and embracing Dioscurus\u2019 knees entreated him to\n desist from such injustice, he called in the soldiers to\n his help who with chains and unsheathed swords rushed into\n the church, after them a crowd of fanatical monks, stout\n parabolani and a raging rabble. Flavian was sorely injured\n by blows and kicks, and died soon afterwards in banishment.\n The Roman legates and Eusebius escaped similar maltreatment\n only by speedy flight. During the later sittings Eutyches\n was restored, but the chiefs of the opposite party, Ibas,\n Theodoret, Domnus, etc., were deposed and excommunicated.\n Leo the Great addressed to the emperor a vigorous protest\n against the decisions of this =Robber Synod=, _Latrocinium\n Ephesinum_, \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae. The result was that Theodosius\n quarrelled with Eudocia, was reconciled to Pulcheria, and\n dismissed his minister. Flavian\u2019s body was now taken in\n state to Constantinople, and honourably buried. Theodosius\u2019\n death in A.D. 450 prevented any further steps being taken.\n His sister Pulcheria, with her husband Marcian, ascended\n the throne. A new =\u0152cumenical Council= (the so-called\n =fourth=) =at Chalcedon in A.D. 451=, deposed Dioscurus,\n who was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, but spared the\n other party leaders of the Monophysites, and condemned\n Nestorianism as well as Eutychianism. Cyril\u2019s synodal\n rescripts against Nestorius and Leo\u2019s Epistle were\n made the basis of the formal statement of the orthodox\n doctrine: \u201cthat Christ is true God and true man, according\n to His Godhead begotten from eternity and like the Father\n in everything, according to his humanity born of Mary\n the Virgin and God bearer in time and like to us men in\n everything, only without sin; and that after His incarnation\n the unity of the person consists in two natures which\n are conjoined without confusion (\u1f00\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2) and without\n change (\u1f00\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2), but also without rending (\u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2)\n and without separation (\u1f00\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2).\u201d In this Synod too\n there were frequently scenes which in unruly violence were\n little behind those of the Robber Synod. When, for example,\n Theodoret entered amid the loud cheers of the orientals,\n the Egyptians saluted him with wild shouts (\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ad\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, said they): \u201cAway with the Jew, the blasphemer\n of God!\u201d A scene of wild confusion and tumult followed\n which only with the greatest difficulty was quelled by\n the imperial commissioners. Then at the eighth session,\n when the Egyptians demanded not only the express and special\n condemnation of the doctrine but also that of the person\n of Nestorius, and Theodoret sought to justify him, the storm\n broke out afresh, and this time the Egyptians gained their\n point, but they were again defeated after violent debate,\n in their attempt to secure the condemnation of the person\n and writings of Ibas.[162]\n\n \u00a7 52.5.\n\n II. =Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519.=--The supporters\n of the Alexandrian dogmatics left the Council full of\n resentment at the defeat which they had sustained. They\n were henceforth called Monophysites. The whole church was\n now in a state of feverish excitement. In Palestine the\n monk Theodosius, secretly co-operating with the dowager\n empress Eudocia living there in exile, roused the mob into\n rebellion. In Egypt the uproar was still more violent.\n Timotheus A\u00eblurus assumed the position of an opposition\n patriarch and drove out the orthodox patriarch Proterius.\n The same thing was done in Antioch by the monk Petrus\n [Peter] Fullo (\u1f41 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2). In order to give a Monophysite\n colour to the liturgy he added to the Trishagion (Is. vi. 3),\n which had been liturgically used in the oldest churches, the\n formula \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2. Party violence meanwhile\n went the length of insurrections and blood-shedding on both\n sides. The new emperor Leo I. the Thracian, A.D. 457-474,\n a powerful and prudent ruler, interposed to bring about\n a pacification. In accordance with the advice of the most\n distinguished bishops of the empire the two mutinous leaders\n of the Monophysites were banished, and the patriarchal\n sees thus vacated filled by moderate Dyophysites. But after\n Leo\u2019s death and the dethronement of his son-in-law Zeno in\n A.D. 475, the usurper Basiliscus issued an edict in A.D. 476,\n under the name of an =Encyclion=, by which the Chalcedonian\n Symbol, along with Leo\u2019s Epistle, was condemned, and\n Monophysitism was proclaimed to be the universal national\n religion. Fullo and A\u00eblurus were also reinstated. The\n patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, on the other hand,\n organized a Dyophysite counter-revolution, Basiliscus was\n overthrown, and the emperor Zeno again placed upon the\n throne in A.D. 477. About this time A\u00eblurus died, and his\n party chose Petrus [Peter] Mongus (\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, stammering) as\n his successor; but the court appointed a Dyophysite Johannes\n Talaja. Acacius, when Talaja took up a hostile position\n towards him, joined with his opponent Mongus. Both agreed\n upon a treaty of union, which also found favour with the\n emperor Zeno, and by an edict, the so-called =Henoticon=\n of A.D. 482 obtained the force of a law. Nestorianism\n and Eutychianism were condemned, Cyril\u2019s anathematisms\n were renewed, the Chalcedonian decisions abrogated,\n and the Nicene faith alone declared valid, while all\n controverted points were to be carefully avoided in teaching\n and preaching. Naturally protests were made from both sides.\n The strict Monophysites of Egypt threw off Mongus, and were\n now called \u1f08\u03ba\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9. Felix III. of Rome, at the head of the\n Dyophysites, refused to have church fellowship with Acacius.\n Thus arose a 35 years\u2019 schism, A.D. 484-519, between East\n and West. Only the Acoimet\u00e6 monks in Constantinople (\u00a7 44, 3)\n continued to hold communion with Rome. Church fellowship\n between the parties was not restored until Justin I.,\n who thought that the schism would hinder his projected\n reconquest of Italy, in conjunction with the Roman bishop\n Hormisdas in A.D. 519, cancelled the Henoticon, and deposed\n those who adhered to it.\n\n \u00a7 52.6.\n\n III. =Justinian\u2019s Decrees, A.D. 527-553.=--During the violent\n conflict of parties Justinian I. entered upon his long\n and politically considered glorious reign, A.D. 527-565.\n He regarded it as his life task permanently to establish\n orthodoxy, and to win back heretics to the church, above\n all the numerous Monophysites. But the well-disposed emperor,\n who moreover had no deep insight into the thorny questions\n of theological controversy, was in various ways misled by\n the intrigues of court theologians, and the machinations\n of his crafty consort Theodora, who was herself secretly\n a Monophysite. The =Theopaschite Controversy= first called\n forth from him a decree. The addition made to the Trishagion\n by Petrus [Peter] Fullo, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2,\n had been smuggled into the Constantinopolitan liturgy\n about A.D. 512. The Acoimet\u00e6 pronounced it heretical, and\n Hormisdas of Rome admitted that it was at least capable of\n being misunderstood and useless. But Justinian sanctioned\n it in A.D. 533. Encouraged by this first success, Theodora\n used her influence to raise the Monophysite Anthimus to\n the episcopal chair of the capital. But the Roman bishop\n Agapetus, who stayed in Constantinople as ambassador\n of the Goths, unmasked him, and obtained his deposition.\n Mennas, a friend of Agapetus, was appointed his successor\n in A.D. 536. All Monophysite writings were ordered to be\n burnt, their transcribers were punished by the loss of their\n hand. Two Palestinian abbots, Domitian and Theodore Ascidas,\n secret Monophysites and zealous friends of Origen, lived at\n court in high favour. To compass their overthrow, Mennas at\n an endemic Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 543 renewed the\n condemnation of the arch-heretic and his writings. The court\n theologians, however, subscribed without objection, and in\n concert with Theodora plotted their revenge. Justinian had\n long regarded Egypt with peculiar interest as the granary\n of the empire. He felt that something must be done to pacify\n the Monophysites who abounded in that country. Theodora\n persuaded him that the Monophysites would be satisfied\n if it were resolved, along with the writings of Theodore,\n the father of the Nestorian heresy, to condemn also the\n controversial writings of Theodoret against the venerated\n Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris. The supposed errors\n of these were collected before him in the _Three Chapters_.\n The emperor did this by an edict in A.D. 544, and demanded\n the consenting subscription of all the bishops. The\n orientals obeyed; but in the West opposition was shown\n on all sides, and thus broke out the violent =Controversy\n of the Three Chapters=. Vigilius of Rome, a creature of\n Theodora (\u00a7 46, 9), had secretly promised his co-operation,\n but, not feeling able to face the storm in the West, he\n broke his word. Justinian had him brought to Constantinople\n in A.D. 547 and forced from him a written declaration,\n the so-called _Judicatum_, in which he agreed to the\n condemnation of the _Three Chapters_. The Africans,\n under Reparatus of Carthage excommunicated the successor\n of Peter, and fought manfully for the rights and honour of\n the calumniated fathers. Fulgentius Farrandus [Ferrandus]\n wrote _Pro tribus capitt._, Facundus of Hermiane, _Defens\u00edo\n III. capitt._, and the deacon Liberatus of Carthage,\n a _Breviarium caus\u00e6 Nestorian. et Eutychianorum_, an\n important source of information for the history of the\n Christological Controversies. Justinian finally convened\n the =Fifth \u0152cumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 553=,\n which confirmed all the imperial edicts. Vigilius issued\n a _Constitum ad Imp._, in which he indeed rejected the\n doctrines of the Three Chapters but refused to condemn\n the persons. Under imprisonment and exile he became pliable,\n and subscribed in A.D. 554. He died in A.D. 555 on his\n return to his bishopric. His successor Pelagius formally\n acknowledged the Constantinopolitan decrees, and North\n Africa, North Italy and Illyria renounced the dishonoured\n chair of Peter. At last Gregory the Great, with much\n difficulty, gradually brought this schism to an end.\n\n \u00a7 52.7.\n\n IV. =The Monophysite Churches.=--Justinian, however, did not\n thereby reach the end he had in view. The Monophysites\n continued their separation because the hated Chalcedonian\n Symbol was still acknowledged. But more injurious to them\n than the persecutions of the orthodox national church\n were the endless quarrels and divisions among themselves.\n First of all the two leaders in Alexandria, Julianus and\n Severus, became heads of rival parties. The =Severians= or\n \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 taught that the body of Christ in itself had\n been subject to corruption (the \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac); the =Julianists=\n denied it. This first split was followed by many others.\n By transferring the Monophysite confusion of \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\n and \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 to the doctrine of the Trinity arose the\n Monophysite sect of the =Tritheists=, who taught that\n in Christ there is one nature, and that in the Trinity\n a separate nature is to be ascribed to each of the three\n persons. Among them was the celebrated philosopher, Johannes\n Philoponus (\u00a7 47, 11), who supported this doctrine by the\n Aristotelian categories. He also vindicated the notion that\n the present world as to form and matter would perish at the\n last day, and an entirely new world with new bodies would\n be created. In opposition to this Conon, bishop of Tarsus,\n affirmed that the overthrow of the world would be in form\n only, and that the risen saints would again possess the\n same bodies though in a glorified form. His followers the\n so-called =Cononites= separated from the main stem of the\n Tritheists and formed an independent sect.--The Monophysites\n were most numerous in Egypt. Out of hatred to the Greek\n Catholics they forbade the use of the Greek language in\n their churches, and chose a Coptic patriarch for themselves.\n They aided the Saracens in their conquest of Egypt in\n A.D. 640, who out of gratitude for this drove away the\n Catholic patriarch. From Egypt Monophysitism spread into\n Abyssinia (\u00a7 64, 1). Already in A.D. 536 Byzantine Armenia\n had been conquered by the Persians, who showed favour to\n the previously oppressed Monophysites (\u00a7 64, 3). In Syria\n and Mesopotamia, during Justinian\u2019s persecutions, the\n unwearied activity of a monk, Jacob Zanzalus, commonly\n called el Baradai, because he went about clad as a beggar,\n ordained by the Monophysites as bishop of Edessa and the\n whole East, saved the Monophysite church from extinction.\n He died in A.D. 538. After him the Monophysites were\n called =Jacobites=. They called the Catholics Melchites,\n _Royalists_. Their patriarch resided at Guba in Mesopotamia.\n Subordinate to him was a suffragan bishop at Tagrit with the\n title of _Maphrian_, _i.e._ the Fruit-bearer. At the head of\n the Armenian Monophysites stood the patriarch of Aschtarag\n with the title _Catholicus_. The Abyssinian church had a\n metropolitan with the title _Abbuna_[163]--_Continuation_\n \u00a7 72, 2.\n\n \u00a7 52.8. =The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.=--The\n increasing political embarrassments of the emperor made a\n union with the Monophysites all the more desirable. The emperor\n Heraclius, A.D. 611-641, was advised to attempt a union of\n parties under the formula: that Christ accomplished His work\n of redemption by the exercise of one divine human will (\u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3). Several Catholic bishops found nothing\n objectionable in this formula which had already been used by\n the Pseudo-Dionysius (\u00a7 47, 11). In A.D. 633 the patriarchs\n Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria on the basis\n of this concluded a treaty, in consequence of which most of\n the Severians attached themselves again to the national church.\n Honorius of Rome also was won over. But the monk Sophronius, who\n soon thereafter in A.D. 634 became patriarch of Jerusalem, came\n forward as the decided opponent Of this union, which led back\n to Monophysitism. The conquest of Jerusalem, however, soon\n after this, A.D. 637, by the Saracens put him outside of the\n scene of conflict. In A.D. 638 the emperor issued an edict,\n the =Ecthesis=, by which it was sought to make an end of the\n strife by substituting for the offensive expression \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 the\n less objectionable term \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, and confirming the Monothelite\n doctrine as alone admissible. Now the monk Maximus (\u00a7 47, 12)\n entered the lists as the champion of orthodoxy. He betook\n himself to Africa, where since Justinian\u2019s time zeal for the\n maintenance of the Chalcedonian faith was strongest, and here\n secured political support in Gregorius [Gregory] the imperial\n governor who sought to make himself independent of Byzantium.\n This statesman arranged for a public disputation at Carthage\n in A.D. 645 between Maximus and the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus of\n Constantinople, the successor of Sergius, who, implicated in\n a palace intrigue, deposed from his office and driven from\n Constantinople, sought refuge in Africa. Pyrrhus willingly\n submitted and abjured his error. An African General Synod in\n A.D. 646 unanimously condemned Monothelitism, renounced church\n fellowship with Paulus, the new patriarch of Constantinople, and\n demanded of Pope Theodorus, A.D. 642-649, a fulmination against\n the heresy. In order to give this demand greater emphasis,\n Maximus and Pyrrhus travelled together to Rome. The latter was\n recognised by the pope as legitimate patriarch of Constantinople,\n but, being induced by the exarch of Ravenna to recant his\n recantation, he was excommunicated by the pope, with a pen\n dipped in the sacramental wine, returned to Constantinople and\n was, after the death of Paulus, reinstated in his former office.\n Maximus remained in Rome and there won the highest reputation\n as the shield of orthodoxy.--The proper end of the union, namely\n the saving of Syria and Egypt, was meanwhile frustrated by\n the Mohammedan conquest of Syria in A.D. 638, and of Egypt\n in A.D. 640. The court, however, for its own honour still\n persevered in it. Africa and Italy occupied a position of\n open revolt. Then emperor Constans II., A.D. 642-668, resolved\n to annul the Ecthesis. In its place he put another enactment\n about the faith, the =Typus=, A.D. 648, which sought to get back\n to the state of matters before the Monothelite movement; that\n neither one nor two wills should be taught. But Martin I. of\n Rome at the first Lateran Synod at Rome in A.D. 649 condemned\n in the strongest terms the Typus as well as the Ecthesis along\n with its original maintainers, and sent the Acts to the emperor.\n The exarch of Ravenna, Olympius, was now ordered to take the\n bold prelate prisoner, but did not obey. His successor sent the\n pope in chains to Constantinople. In A.D. 653 he was banished\n for high treason to the Chersonese, where he literally suffered\n hunger, and died in A.D. 655 six months after his arrival.\n Still more dreadful was the fate of the abbot Maximus. At\n the same time with Martin or soon after he too was brought\n to Constantinople a prisoner from Rome. Here for a whole year\n every effort imaginable was made, entreaties, promises, threats,\n imprisonment, hunger, etc., in order to induce him to acknowledge\n the Typus, but all in vain. The emperor then lost all patience.\n In a towering rage at the unparalleled obstinacy of the monk\u2019s\n resistance he doomed him, A.D. 662, to dreadful scourging, to\n have his tongue wrenched out and his hand hewn off, and to be\n sent into the wildest parts of Thrace, where he died a few weeks\n after his arrival at the age of 82 years. Such barbaric severity\n was effectual for a long time. But under the next emperor\n Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, the two parties prepared\n for a new conflict. The emperor resolved to make an end of it\n by a General Council. Pope Agatho held a brilliant Synod at Rome\n in A.D. 679, where it was laid down that not one iota should\n be abated from the decisions of the Lateran Synod. With these\n decisions and a missive from the pope himself, the papal legates\n appeared at the =Sixth \u0152cumenical Council at Constantinople in\n A.D. 680=, called also _Concil. Trullanum I._, because it was\n held in the mussel-shaped vaulted hall Trullus in the imperial\n castle, under the presidency of the emperor. As at Chalcedon\n the Epistle of Leo I., so also here that of Agatho lay at the\n basis of the Council\u2019s doctrinal decrees: \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n \u1f11\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3. The Synod even\n condescended to grant the pope a report of the proceedings and\n to request his confirmation of its decisions. But the Greeks,\n finding a malicious pleasure in the confusion of their rivals,\n contrived to mix in the sweet drink a strong infusion of bitter\n wormwood, for the Council among the other representatives of\n Monothelite error ostentatiously and expressly condemned pope\n Honorius as an accursed heretic. Pope Leo II. in a letter\n to the emperor confirmed the decisions of the Council,\n expressly homologating the condemnation of Honorius, \u201c_qui\n profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus\n est_.\u201d--Henceforth Dyothelitism prevailed universally. Only\n in one little corner of Asia, to which the arm of the state\n did not reach, a vestige of Monothelitism continued to exist.\n Its scattered adherents gathered in the monastery of St. Maro\n in Lebanon, and acknowledged the abbot of this cloister as\n their ecclesiastical head. They called themselves Maronites, and\n with sword in hand maintained their ecclesiastical as well as\n political independence against Byzantines and Saracens (\u00a7 72, 3).\n\n \u00a7 52.9. =The Case of Honorius.=--The two Roman Synods, A.D. 649\n and 679, had simply ignored the notorious fact of the complicity\n of Honorius in the furtherance of Monothelite error, and Agatho\n might hope by the casual statement in his letter, that the Roman\n chair never had taken the side of heretical novelties, to beguile\n the approaching \u0153cumenical Synod into the same obliviousness. But\n the Greeks paid no heed to the hint. His successor Leo II. could\n not do otherwise than homologate the Eastern leaders\u2019 condemnation\n of heresy, even that of Honorius, hard though this must have\n been to him. On the other hand, the biographies of the popes from\n Honorius to Agatho in the Roman _Liber pontificalis_ (\u00a7 90, 6)\n help themselves out of this dilemma again by preserving a dead\n silence about any active or passive interference of Honorius\n in the Monothelite controversy. In the biography of Leo II. for\n the first time is Honorius\u2019 name mentioned among those of the\n condemned Monothelites, but without any particular remark about\n him as an individual. So too in the formulary of a profession of\n faith in the _Liber diurnus_ of the Roman church made by every\n new pope and in use down to the 11th century (\u00a7 46, 11). From\n the biography of Leo in the Pontifical book was copied the simple\n name into the readings of the Roman Breviary for the day of\n this saint, and so it remained down to the 17th century. It had\n then been quite forgotten in the West that by this name a pope\n was designated. Oftentimes it had been affirmed that even Roman\n popes might fall and actually had fallen into error; but only\n such cases as those of Liberius (\u00a7 46, 4), Anastasius (\u00a7 46, 8),\n Vigilius (\u00a7 52, 6), John XXII. (\u00a7 110, 3; 112, 2) were adduced;\n that of Honorius occurred to nobody. It was only in the 15th\n century, through more careful examination of Acts of Synods that\n the true state of matters was discovered, and in the 16th century\n when the question of the infallibility of the pope had become\n a burning one (\u00a7 149, 4), the case of Honorius became the real\n Sisyphus rock of Roman Catholic theology. The most laborious\n attempts have been made by most venturesome means to get it out\n of the way. The condemnation of Honorius by the sixth \u0153cumenical\n Council has been described as merely a spiteful invention of\n later Greeks, who falsified everything relating to him in the\n Acts of the Council; so, _e.g._ Baronius, Bellarmine, etc.--The\n condemnation actually took place but not at the \u0153cumenical first,\n but at the schismatical second, Trullan Council of A.D. 692\n (\u00a7 63, 2), and the record of procedure has been by the malice\n of later Greeks transferred from the record of the second to\n that of the first.--Forged epistles of Honorius were laid before\n the sixth \u0153cumenical Council, by means of which it was misled\n into passing sentence upon him.--The condemnation of the pope\n did not turn upon his doctrine but upon his unseasonable love\n of peace.--The pope meant well, but expressed himself so as\n to be misunderstood; so _e.g._ the Jesuit Garnier in his ed.\n of the _Liber diurnus_, the Vatican Council, and Hefele in\n the 2nd ed. of his Hist. of the Councils.--In the epistles\n referred to he spoke as a private individual and not officially,\n _ex cathedra_.--It is, however, fatal to all such explanations\n that the infallible pope Leo II. solemnly denounced _ex cathedra_\n his infallible predecessor Honorius as a heretic. Besides the\n only other possible escape by distinguishing the _question du\n fait_ and the _question du droit_ has been formally condemned\n _ex cathedra_ in connection with another case (\u00a7 156, 5).[164]\n\n\n \u00a7 53. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, A.D. 412-529.[165]\n\n While the Trinitarian and Christological controversies had their\norigin in the East and there gave rise to the most violent conflicts,\nthe West taking indeed a lively interest in the discussion and by the\ndecisive voice of Rome giving the victory to orthodoxy at almost every\nstage of the struggle, it was in the West that a controversy broke\nout, which for a full century proceeded alongside of the Christological\ncontroversy, without awakening in the East more than a passing and even\nthen only a secondary interest. It dealt with the fundamental questions\nof sin and grace. In opposition to the Pelagian _Monergism_ of human\nfreedom, as well as the semi-Pelagian _Synergism_ of divine grace and\nhuman freedom, the Augustinian _Monergism_ of divine grace finally\nobtained the victory.\n\n \u00a7 53.1. =Preliminary History.=--From the earliest times the\n actual universality of sin and the need of divine grace in\n Christ for redemption from sin received universal acknowledgment\n throughout the whole church. But as to whether and how far the\n moral freedom of men was weakened or lost by sin, and in what\n relation human conduct stood to divine grace, great uncertainty\n prevailed. Opposition to Gnosticism and Manich\u00e6ism led the older\n fathers to emphasise as strongly as possible the moral freedom\n of men, and induced them to deny inborn sinfulness as well\n as the doctrine that sin was imprinted in men in creation,\n and to account for man\u2019s present condition by bad training,\n evil example, the agency of evil spirits, etc. This tendency\n was most vigorously expressed by the Alexandrians. The new\n Alexandrian school showed an unmistakable inclination to connect\n the universality of sin with Adam\u2019s sin, without going the length\n of affirming the doctrine of inherited sinfulness. In Soteriology\n it remained faithful to its traditional synergism (comp., however,\n \u00a7 47, 7k, l.) The Antiochean school sought to give due place to\n the co-operation of the human will alongside of the necessity of\n divine grace, and reduced the idea of inherited sin to that of\n inherited evil. So especially Chrysostom, who was indeed able to\n conceive that Adam by his actual sin become mortal could beget\n only mortal children, but not that the sinner could beget only\n sinners. The first man brought death into the world, we confirm\n and renew the doom by our own sin. Man by his moral will does\n his part, the divine grace does its part. The whole East is\n unanimous in most distinctly repudiating all predestinational\n wilfulness in God. In the West, on the other hand, by Traducianism\n or Generationism introduced by Tertullian, which regards\n the soul as begotten with the body, the way was prepared\n for recognising the doctrine of inherited sin (_Tradux anim\u00e6,\n tradux peccati_) and consequently also of monergism. Tertullian,\n himself, proceeding from the experience, that in every man\n from birth there is present an unconquerable tendency to sin,\n spoke with great decidedness of a _Vitium originis_. In this\n he was followed by Cyprian, Ambrose and Hilary. Yet even these\n teachers of the church had not altogether been emancipated\n from synergism, and alongside of expressions which breathe the\n hardest predestinationism, are found others which seem to give\n equal weight to the opposite doctrine of human co-operation in\n conversion. Augustine was the first to state with the utmost\n consistency the doctrine of the divine monergism; while Pelagius\n carried out the synergism of the earlier fathers until it became\n scarcely less than human monergism.--Meanwhile Traducianism did\n not succeed in obtaining universal recognition even in the West.\n Augustine vacillates; Jerome and Leo the Great prefer Creationism,\n which represents God as creating a new soul for each human being\n begotten. Most of the later church fathers, too, are creationists,\n without, however, prejudicing the doctrine of inherited sin.\n Those of them who supported the trichotomic theory (\u00a7 52, 1)\n held that it was the cobegotten \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, _anima sensitiva_\n as opposed to the _anima intellectualis_, while those who\n supported the dichotomic theory, which posits merely body and\n soul, held that it was the soul created good by God, which was\n infected on its passing into the body begotten by human parents\n with its inherited sin. The theory of Pre existence, which\n Origen had brought forward (\u00a7 31, 5) had, even in the East,\n only occasional representatives (\u00a7 47, 7m, n, o.).[166]\n\n \u00a7 53.2. =The Doctrine of Augustine.=--During the first period\n of his Christian life, when the conflict with Manich\u00e6ism still\n stood in the forefront of his thinking and controversial activity,\n Augustine, looking at faith as a self-determining of the human\n will, had thought a certain measure of free co-operation on the\n part of man in his conversion to be necessary and had therefore\n refused to maintain his absolute want of merit. But by his whole\n life\u2019s experience he was irresistibly led to acknowledge man\u2019s\n natural inability for any positive co-operation and to make faith\n together with conversion depend solely upon the grace of God. The\n perfect and full development of this doctrine was brought about\n by means of his controversy with the Pelagians. Augustine\u2019s\n doctrinal system in its most characteristic features is as\n follows: Man was created free and in the image of God, destined\n to and capable of attaining immortality, holiness and blessedness,\n but also with the possibility of sinning and dying. By the\n exercise of his freedom he must determine his own career. Had\n he determined himself for God, the being able not to sin and not\n to die, would have become an impossibility of sinning and dying,\n the _Posse non peccare et mori_ would have become a _Non posse\n peccare et mori_. But tempted by Satan he fell, and thus it\n became for him impossible that he should not sin and die, _non\n posse non peccare et non mori_. All prerogatives of the Divine\n image were lost; he retained only the capacity for outward civil\n righteousness, _Justitia civilis_, and a capacity for redemption.\n In Adam, moreover, all mankind sinned, for he was all mankind. By\n generation Adam\u2019s nature as it was after sin, with sin and guilt,\n death and condemnation, but also the capacity for redemption,\n passed over to all his posterity. Divine grace, which alone can\n redeem and save man, attached itself to the remnant of the divine\n image which expressed itself in the need of redemption and the\n capacity for redemption. Grace is therefore absolutely necessary,\n in the beginning, middle and end of the Christian life. It is\n granted man, not because he believes, but that he may believe;\n for faith too is the work of God\u2019s grace. First of all grace\n awakens through the law the consciousness of sin and the desire\n for redemption, and leads by the gospel to faith in the Redeemer\n (_gratia pr\u00e6veniens_). By means of faith it thus secures the\n forgiveness of sin as _primum beneficium_ through appropriating\n the merits of Christ and in part the powers of the divine\n life through the implanting of living fellowship with Christ\n (in baptism). Thus is free will restored to the good (_Gratia\n operans_) and evidences itself in a holy life in love. But\n even in the regenerate the old man with his sinful lusts is\n still present. In the struggle of the new with the old he is\n continually supported by Divine grace (_Gratia co-operans_)\n unto his justification (_Justificatio_) which is completed in\n the making righteous of his whole life and being through the\n Divine impartation (_Infusio_) of new powers of will. The final\n act of grace, which, however, according to the educative wisdom\n of God is not attained in this life, is the absolute removal\n of evil desire (_Concupiscentia_) and transfiguration into the\n perfect likeness of Christ through resurrection and eternal\n life (_Non posse peccare et mori_). Apart from the inconsistent\n theory of justification proposed, this view of nature and grace\n is thoroughly Pauline. Augustine, however, connects with it the\n doctrine of an absolute predestination. Experience shows that not\n all men attain to conversion and redemption. Since man himself\n can contribute nothing to his conversion, the ground of this must\n be sought not in the conduct of the man but only in an eternal\n unconditional decree of God, _Decretum absolutum_, according\n to which He has determined out of the whole fallen race of man,\n _Massa perditionis_, to save some to the glory of His grace and\n to leave others to their deserved doom to the glory of His penal\n righteousness. The ground of this election is only the wise and\n mysterious good pleasure of the divine will without reference to\n man\u2019s faith, which is indeed only a gift of God. If it is said:\n \u201cGod wills that all men should be saved,\u201d that can only mean,\n \u201call who are predestinated.\u201d As the outcasts (_Reprobati_)\n can in no way appropriate grace unto themselves, the elect\n (_Electi_) cannot in any way resist it (_Gratia irresistibilis_).\n The one sure sign that one is elected is, therefore, undisturbed\n perseverance in the possession of grace (_Donum perseveranti\u00e6_).\n To the heathens, even the noblest of them, he refused salvation,\n but made a distinction in the degrees of their penal tortures.\n So too unbaptized children were all regarded as lost. Although\n over against this he also set down the proposition: _Contemtus,\n non defectus sacramenti damnat_, the resolution of this\n contradiction lay in the special divine election of grace, which\n secures to the elect the dispensation of the sacrament.[167]\n\n \u00a7 53.3. =Pelagius and his Doctrine.=--Pelagius (\u00a7 47, 21),\n a British monk of respectable learning and decided moral\n earnestness, living far away from the storms and strife of life,\n without any strong inward temptations, without any inclination\n to manifest sins and without deep experience of the Christian\n life, knowing and striving after no higher ideal than that of\n monkish asceticism, had developed a theory quite antagonistic\n to that of Augustine. He was strengthened in his opposition to\n Augustine\u2019s doctrine of the corruption of human nature and its\n unfitness for all co-operation in conversion and sanctification,\n by observing that this doctrine was often misused by careless men\n as an excuse for carnal confidence and moral selfishness. He was\n thus made more resolute in maintaining that it is more wholesome\n to preach to men an imperative moral law whose demands they, as\n he thought, could satisfy by determined will and moral endeavour.\n Man at first was created mortal by God, and not temporal but\n spiritual death is the consequence and punishment of sin. Adam\u2019s\n fall has changed nothing in human nature and has had no influence\n upon his descendants. Every man now is born just as God created\n the first man, _i.e._ without sin and without virtue. By his\n wholly unweakened freedom he decides for himself on the one\n side or the other. The universality of sin results from the\n power of seduction, of mere example and habit. Still there may\n be completely sinless men; and there have been such. God\u2019s grace\n facilitates man\u2019s accomplishment of his purpose. It is, therefore,\n not absolutely, but by the actual universality of sin, relatively\n necessary. Grace consists in enlightenment by revelation, in\n forgiveness of sin as the expression of divine forbearance, and\n in the strengthening of our moral powers by the incentive of\n the law and the promise of eternal life. God\u2019s grace is destined\n for all men, but man must make himself worthy of it by honest\n striving after virtue. Christ became man, in order by His perfect\n teaching and by the perfect pattern of His life to give us the\n most powerful incentive to reformation and the redeeming of\n ourselves thereby. As in sin we are Adam\u2019s offspring, so in\n virtue shall we be Christ\u2019s offspring. He regarded baptism as\n necessary (infant baptism _in remissionem futurorum peccatorum_).\n Children dying unbaptized he placed in a lower stage of\n blessedness. The same inconsistent submission to the fathers\n of ecclesiastical tradition shows itself in the acceptance of\n ecclesiastical views of revelation, miracles, prophecy, the\n Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, whereas a more consistent\n and systematic thinker would have felt compelled from his\n anthropological principles to set aside or at least modify these\n supernaturalistic elements.\n\n \u00a7 53.4. =The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.=--From A.D. 409\n Pelagius resided in Rome. Here he gained over to his views\n C\u0153lestius, a man of greater acuteness and scientific attainments\n than himself. Both won high respect in Rome for their zeal for\n morality and asceticism and promulgated their doctrine without\n opposition. In A.D. 411 both went to Carthage, whence Pelagius\n went and settled in Palestine. C\u0153lestius remained behind\n and obtained the office of presbyter. Now for the first time\n his errors were opposed. Paulinus deacon of Milan (\u00a7 47, 20)\n happening to be there formally complained against him, and a\n provincial Synod at Carthage A.D. 412 excommunicated him, on\n his refusal to retract. In the same year too Augustine published\n his first controversial treatise: _De peccatorum meritis et\n remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, Lb. III._ In =Palestine=\n Pelagius had attached himself to the Origenists. Jerome, besides\n passing a depreciatory judgment upon his literary productions,\n contested his doctrine as an expounder of the Origenist heresy\n (_Ep. ad Ctesiphontem_ and _Dialog. c. Pelagium, Lb. III._),\n and a young Spanish presbyter Paulus [Paul] Orosius (\u00a7 47, 20)\n complained of him to the Synod of Jerusalem A.D. 415, under the\n presidency of bishop John of that city. The synergistic orientals,\n however, could not be convinced of the dangerous character of\n his carefully guarded doctrine. Such too was the result of the\n Synod of Diospolis or Lydda in A.D. 415 under bishop Eulogius of\n C\u00e6sarea, where two Gallic bishops appeared as accusers. Augustine\n proved to the Palestinians in _De gestis Pelagii_ that they had\n allowed themselves to be kept in the dark by Pelagius. Orosius\n too published a controversial tract, _Apologeticus c. Pelag._,\n in reply to which, or more probably to Jerome, Theodore of\n Mopsuestia wrote the book now lost, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. Then the Africans again\n took up the controversy. Two Synods at Mileve and Carthage, in\n A.D. 416, reiterated their condemnation and sent their decree\n to Innocent I. at Rome. The Pope acquiesced in the proceedings\n of the Africans. Pelagius sent a veiled confession of faith and\n C\u0153lestius appeared personally in Rome. Innocent died, however,\n in A.D. 417, before his arrival. His successor Zozimus [Zosimus],\n perhaps a Greek and certainly weak as a dogmatist, allowed\n himself to be won over by C\u0153lestius and brought severe charges\n against the Africans, against which again these entered a\n vigorous protest. In A.D. 418 the emperor Honorius issued his\n _Sacrum rescriptum_ against the Pelagians and a general Synod\n at Carthage in the same year emphatically condemned them. Now\n Zozimus [Zosimus] was prevailed on also to condemn them in his\n _Epistola tractatoria_. Eighteen Italian bishops, among them\n Julian of Eclanum in Apulia, the most acute and able apologist\n of Pelagianism, refused to subscribe and were banished. They\n sought and obtained protection from the Constantinopolitan bishop\n Nestorius. But this connection did harm to both. The Roman bishop\n C\u0153lestine took part with those who opposed the Christological\n views of Nestorius (\u00a7 52, 3), and at the =\u0152cumenical Council\n of Ephesus in A.D. 431=, the orientals condemned along with\n Nestorius also Pelagius and C\u0153lestius, without, however,\n determining anything positive in regard to the doctrine under\n discussion. To this end with unwearied zeal laboured Marius\n Mercator, a learned layman of Constantinople, who published\n two _Commonitoria_ against Pelagius and C\u0153lestius, and a\n controversial treatise against Julian of Eclanum. Meanwhile\n too Augustine rested not from his energetic polemic. In A.D. 413\n he wrote _De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum_; in A.D. 415\n against Pelagius, _De natura et gratia_; against C\u0153lestius,\n _De perfectione justiti\u00e6 hominis_. In A.D. 416, _De gestis\n Pelagii_. In A.D. 418, _De gratia Dei et de peccato originali\n Lb. II. c. Pelag. et C\u0153l._ In A.D. 419, _De nuptiis et\n concupiscentia Lb. II._, against the charge that his doctrine\n was a reviling of God-appointed marriage. In A.D. 420, _C. duas\n epistolas Pelagianorum et Bonifatium I._, against the vindicatory\n writings of Julian and his friends. In A.D. 421, _Lb. VI.\n c. Julianum_. And later still, _Opus imperfectum c. secundam\n Juliani responsionem_. Engl. Transl.; Ante-Nicene Lib.:\n Anti-Pelag. Wr., 3 vols., Edin., 1867 ff.\n\n \u00a7 53.5. =The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529.=--Bald\n Pelagianism was overthrown, but the excessive crudeness of the\n predestination theory, as set forth by Augustine, called forth\n new forms of opposition. The monks of the monastery of Adrumetum\n in North Africa, by severely carrying out the predestination\n theory to its last consequences, had fallen, some into\n sore distress of soul and despair, others into security and\n carelessness, while others again thought that to avoid such\n consequences, one must ascribe to human activity in the work\n of salvation a certain degree of meritoriousness. The abbot of\n the monastery in this dilemma applied to Augustine, who in two\n treatises, written in A.D. 427, _De gratia et libero arbitrio_\n and _De correptione et gratia_, sought to overcome the scruples\n and misconceptions of the monks. But about this time in Southern\n Gaul there was a whole theological school which rejected the\n doctrine of predestination, and maintained the necessity of\n according to human freedom a certain measure of co-operation\n with divine grace, in consequence of which sometimes the one,\n sometimes the other, is fundamental in conversion. At the head\n of this school was Johannes Cassianus (\u2020 A.D. 432), a disciple\n and friend of Chrysostom, founder and president of the monastery\n at Massilia. His followers are thence called Massilians or\n Semi-Pelagians. He had himself contested Augustine\u2019s doctrine,\n without naming it, in the 13th of his _Collationes Patrum_\n (\u00a7 47, 21). Of his disciples the most famous was Vincentius\n [Vincent] Lerinensis (of the monastery of Lerinum), who in his\n _Commonitorium pro Catholic\u00e6 fidei antiquitate et universitate_\n (Engl. Transl., Oxford, 1836) laid down the principle that the\n catholic faith is, _quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum\n est_. Judged by this standard Augustine\u2019s doctrine was by no\n means catholic. The second book of this work, now lost, probably\n contested Augustinianism expressly and was, therefore, suppressed.\n But Augustine had talented supporters even in Gaul, such as\n the two laymen Hilarius and Prosper Aquitanicus (\u00a7 47, 20). What\n took place around them they reported to Augustine, who wrote\n against the Massilians _De predestinatione Sanctorum_ and\n _De dono perseveranti\u00e6_. He was prevented by his death, which\n took place in A.D. 430, from taking part longer in the contest.\n Hilarius and Prosper, however, continued it. Since the Roman\n bishop C\u0153lestine, before whom in A.D. 431 they personally made\n complaint, answered with a Yes and No theology, Prosper himself\n took up the battle in an able work _De gratia Dei et libero\n arbitrio contra Collatorem_, but in doing so unwittingly smoothed\n off the sharpest points of the Augustinian system. This happened\n yet more decidedly in the ingenious treatise _De Vocatione\n gentium_, whose author was perhaps Leo the Great, afterwards\n pope but then only a deacon. On the other side, opponents\n (Arnobius the younger?) used the artifice of presenting, in\n the notable work entitled _Pr\u00e6destinatus_, pretending to be\n written by a follower of Augustine, a caricature of the doctrine\n of predestination carried to the utmost extreme of absurdity,\n and these sought to justify their own position. The first book\n contains a description of ninety heresies, the last of which is\n predestinationism; the second gives as supplement to the first\n the pretended treatise of such a predestinarian; and the third\n confutes it. A certain presbyter Lucidus, a zealous adherent of\n the doctrine of predestination, was by a semi-Pelagian synod at\n Aries in A.D. 475 forced to recant. Faustus, bishop of Rhegium\n (\u00a7 47, 21), sent after him by order of the Council a controversial\n treatise _De gratia Dei et human\u00e6 mentis libero arbitrio_, and\n also in the same year A.D. 475, a Synod at Lyons sanctioned\n semi-Pelagianism. The treatise of Faustus, although moderate\n and conciliatory, caused violent agitation among a community\n of Scythian monks in Constantinople, A.D. 520. They complained\n through bishop Possessor of Carthage to pope Hormisdas, but\n he too answered with a Yes and No theology. Then the Africans\n banished by the Vandals to Sardinia took up the matter. They\n held a Council in A.D. 523, by whose order Fulgentius of Ruspe\n (\u00a7 47, 20), a zealous apologist of Augustinianism composed his\n _De veritate pr\u00e6dest. et gratia Dei Lb. III._, which made an\n impression even in Gaul. And now two able Gallic bishops, Avitus\n of Vienne and C\u00e6sarius of Arles (\u00a7 47, 20) entered the lists in\n behalf of a moderate Augustinianism, and won for it at the Synod\n of Oranges in A.D. 529 a decided victory over semi-Pelagianism.\n Augustine\u2019s doctrine of original sin in its strictest form,\n and his assertions about the utter want of merit in every human\n act and the unconditional necessity of grace were acknowledged,\n faith was extolled as exclusively the effect of grace, but\n predestination in regard to the _Reprobati_ was reduced to\n mere foreknowledge, and predestination to evil was rejected as\n blasphemy against God. A synod held in the same year, A.D. 529,\n at Valence confirmed the decrees of Oranges. Boniface II. of Rome\n did the same in A.D. 530.[168]--Continuation \u00a7 91, 5.\n\n\n \u00a7 54. REAPPEARANCE AND REMODELLING OF EARLIER HERETICAL SECTS.\n\n Manich\u00e6ism (\u00a7 29) had still numerous adherents not merely in the far\noff eastern provinces but also in Italy and North Africa; and isolated\nMarcionite churches (\u00a7 27, 11) were still to be found in almost all the\ncountries within the empire and also beyond its bounds. An independent\nreawakening of Gnostic-Manich\u00e6an tendencies arose in Spain under the\nname of Priscillianism.\n\n \u00a7 54.1. =Manich\u00e6ism.=--The universal toleration of religion,\n which Constantine introduced, was also extended to the Manich\u00e6ans\n of his empire (\u00a7 29, 3). But from the time of Valentinian I.\n the emperors issued repeatedly severe penal laws against them.\n The favour which they obtained in Syria and Palestine led bishop\n Titus of Bostra in Arabia Petr\u00e6a, about A.D. 370, to write\n his 4 Bks. against the Manich\u00e6ans. The Manich\u00e6an church stood\n in particularly high repute in North Africa, even to the 4th\n and 5th centuries. Its most important representative there,\n Faustus of Mileve, published a controversial treatise against\n the Catholic church, which Augustine, who had earlier been\n himself an adherent of the Manich\u00e6ans, expressly answered in\n 33 Bks. (Engl. Transl.: \u201cAnte-Nicene Lib.\u201d Treatises against\n Faustus the Manich\u00e6an, Edin., 1868). When the Manich\u00e6an Felix,\n in order to advance the cause of his church, came to Hippo,\n Augustine challenged him to a public disputation, and after two\n days\u2019 debate drove him into such straits that he at last admitted\n himself defeated, and was obliged to pronounce anathema on Mani\n and his doctrine. With still greater zeal than by the imperial\n government were the African Manich\u00e6ans persecuted by the Vandals,\n whose king Hunerich (\u00a7 76, 3) burnt many, and transported whole\n ships\u2019 loads to the continent of Europe. In the time of Leo\n the Great (\u2020 A.D. 461) they were very numerous in Rome. His\n investigations tend to show that they entertained antinomian\n views, and in their mysteries indulged in lustful practices.\n Also in the time of Gregory the Great (\u2020 A.D. 604) the church\n of Italy was still threatened by their increase. Since then,\n however, nothing more is heard of Manich\u00e6an tendencies in\n the West down to the 11th century, when suddenly they again\n burst forth with fearfully threatening and contagious power\n (\u00a7 108, 1). In the eastern parts of the empire, too, numerous\n Gnostic-Manich\u00e6an remnants continued to exist in secret, and\n from the 9th to the 12th century reappeared in a new form (\u00a7 71).\n Still more widely about this time did such views spread among the\n Mussulman rulers of the Eastern borderlands, as far as China and\n India, as the Arabian historians of this period testify (\u00a7 29, 1).\n\n \u00a7 54.2. =Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563.=--The first seeds of the\n Gnostic-Manich\u00e6an creed were brought to Spain in the 4th century\n by an Egyptian Marcus. A rich and cultured layman Priscillian\n let himself be drawn away in this direction, and developed\n it independently into a dualistic and emanationistic system.\n Marriage and carnal pleasures were forbidden, yet under an\n outward show of strict asceticism were concealed antinomian\n tendencies with impure orgies. At the same time the sect\n encouraged and required lies and perjury, hypocrisy and\n dissimulation for the spread and preservation of their community.\n \u201c_Jura, perjura, secretum perdere noli._\u201d Soon Priscillianists\n spread over all Spain; even some bishops joined them. Bishop\n Idacius of Emerida by his passionate zeal against them fanned\n the flickering fire into a bright flame. A synod at Saragossa\n in A.D. 380 excommunicated them, and committed the execution of\n its decrees to Bishop Ithacius of Sossuba, a violent and besides\n an immoral man. Along with Idacius he had obtained from the\n emperor Gratian an edict which pronounced on all Priscillianists\n the sentence of banishment. Priscillian\u2019s bribes, however, not\n only rendered this edict inoperative, but also an order for the\n arrest of Ithacius, which he avoided only by flight into Gaul.\n Here he won over the usurper Maximus, the murderer of Gratian,\n who, greedy for their property, used the torture against the\n sect, and had Priscillian as well as some of his followers\n beheaded at Treves in A.D. 385. This was the first instance\n of capital punishment used against heretics. The noble bishop,\n Martin of Tours (\u00a7 47, 14), to whom the emperor had previously\n promised that he would act mildly, hastened to Treves and\n renounced church fellowship with Ithacius and all bishops\n who had assented to the death sentence. Ambrose too and other\n bishops expressed their decided disapproval. This led Maximus\n to stop the military inquisition against them. But the glory of\n martyrdom had fired the enthusiasm of the sect, and among the\n barbarians who made their way into Spain from A.D. 409 they\n won a rich harvest. Paulus [Paul] Orosius (\u00a7 47, 20) wrote his\n _Commonitorium de errore Priscillianist._ in A.D. 415, looking\n for help to Augustine, whom, however, concern and contests\n in other directions allowed to take but little part in this\n controversy. Of more consequence was the later interference\n of Leo the Great, occasioned by a call for help from bishop\n Turribius of Astorga. Following his instructions, a _Concilium\n Hispanicum_ in A.D. 447 and still more distinctly a Council\n at Braga in A.D. 563 passed vigorous rules for the suppression\n of heresy. Since then the name of the Priscillianists has\n disappeared, but their doctrine was maintained in secret for\n some centuries longer.[169]\n\n\n\n\n V. WORSHIP, LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.\n\n\n \u00a7 55. WORSHIP IN GENERAL.\n\n Christian worship freed by Constantine from the pressure of\npersecution developed a great wealth of forms with corresponding\nstateliness of expression. But doctrinal controversies claimed so\nmuch attention that neither space nor time was left for carrying the\nother developments in the same way through the fire of conflict and\nsifting. Hence forms of worship were left to be moulded in particular\nways by the spirit of the age, nationality and popular taste. The public\nspirit of the church, however, gave to the development an essential\nunity, and early differences were by and by brought more and more into\nharmony. Only between East and West was the distinction strong enough\nto make in various ways an impression in opposition to the levelling\nendeavours of catholicity.\n\n The age of Cyril of Alexandria marks an important turning point\n in the development of worship. It was natural that Cyril\u2019s\n prevailing doctrine of the intimate connection of the divine\n and human natures in the person of Christ should have embodied\n itself in the services of the church. But this doctrine was\n yet at least one-sided theory which did not wholly exclude\n its perversion into error. In the dogma, indeed, thanks to\n the exertions of Leo and Theodoret, the still extant Monophysite\n error had no place given it. But in the worship of the church\n it had embedded itself, and here it was not overcome, and its\n presence was not even suspected, so, it could now not only\n develop itself undisturbed in the direction of worship of saints,\n images, relics, of pilgrimages, of sacrifice of the mass, etc.,\n but also it could decisively deduce therefrom a development of\n dogmas not yet established, _e.g._ in the doctrine of the church,\n of the priesthood, of the sacraments, especially of the Lord\u2019s\n Supper, etc., etc.\n\n\n \u00a7 56. FESTIVALS AND SEASONS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP.\n\n The idea of having particular days of the week consecrated in memory\nof special incidents in the work of redemption had even in the previous\nperiod found expression (\u00a7 37), but it now passed into the background\nall the more as the church began to apply itself to the construction in\nthe richest possible form of a Christian year. The previous difference\nin the development of East and West occasioned each to take its\nown particular course, determined in the one case very much by a\nJewish-Christian, in the other by a Gentile-Christian, tendency.\nNevertheless in the 4th century we find a considerable levelling\nof these divergences. This at least was attained unto thereby that\nthe three chief festivals received an essentially common form in both\nchurches. But in the 5th and 6th centuries, in the further development\nof the Christian year, the two churches parted all the more decidedly\nfrom one another. The Western church especially gave way more and more\nunreservedly to the tendency to make the natural year the type and\npattern for the Christian year. Thus the Western Christian year obtained\na richer development and grew up into an institution more vitally and\ninwardly related to the life of the people. The luxuriant overgrowth\nof saints\u2019 days, however, prevented the church from here reaching its\nideal.\n\n \u00a7 56.1. =The Weekly Cycle.=--Constantine the Great issued a law\n in A.D. 321, according to which all magisterial, judicial and\n municipal business was stopped on =Sunday=. At a later period\n he also forbade military exercises. His successors extended the\n prohibition to the public spectacles. Alongside of Sunday the\n =Sabbath= was long celebrated in the East by meetings in the\n churches, avoidance of fasting and by standing at prayers. The\n _Dies stationum_, Wednesday and Friday (\u00a7 37), were observed in\n the East as fast days. The West gave up the Wednesday fast, and\n introduced in its place the anti-Judaic Sabbath fast.\n\n \u00a7 56.2. =Hours and Quarterly Fasts.=--The number of appointed\n _hours of prayer_ (the 3rd, 6th and 9th hours, comp. Dan.\n vi. 10-14; Acts ii. 15; iii. 1; x. 9) were increased during\n the 5th century to eight (_Hor\u00e6 canonic\u00e6: Matutina_ or matins\n at 3 a.m.; _Prima_ at 6 a.m.; _Tertia_ at 9 a.m.; _Sexta_ at\n 12 noon; _Nona_ at 3 p.m.; _Vesper_ at 6 p.m.; _Completorium_\n at 9 p.m.; and _Mesonyktion_ or Vigils at 12 midnight); yet\n generally two of the night hours were combined, so as to\n preserve the seven times required in Ps. cxix. 164. This\n arrangement of hours was strictly observed by monks and clerics.\n The common basis of prayer for devotions at these hours was the\n Psalter divided among the seven days of the week. The rest of the\n material adapted to the course of the Christian year, consisting\n of scripture and patristic readings, legends of martyrs and\n saints, prayers, hymns, doxologies, etc. gradually accumulated\n so that it had to be abbreviated, and hence the name _Breviarium_\n commonly given to such selections. The Roman Breviary, arranged\n mainly by Leo the Great, Gelasius and Gregory the Great, gradually\n throughout the West drove all other such compositions from the\n field. An abbreviation by Haymo, General of the Minorites, in\n A.D. 1241 was sanctioned by Gregory IX., but had subsequently\n many alterations made upon it. The Council of Trent finally\n charged the Papal chair with the task of preparing a new\n redaction which the clergy of the whole catholic church would\n be obliged to use. Such a production was issued by Pius V. in\n A.D. 1568, and then in A.D. 1631 Urban VIII. gave it the form\n in which it is still current.--In the West the year was divided\n into three-monthly periods, _quatuor tempora_, corresponding to\n the seasons of prayer recurring every three hours. There were\n harvest prayer and thanksgiving seasons, occupied, in accordance\n with Joel ii., with penance, fasting and almsgiving. Leo the\n Great brought this institution to perfection. The _quatuor\n tempora_, ember days, occur in the beginning of the Quadragesima,\n in the week after Pentecost, and in the middle of the 7th and\n 10th months (Sept. and Dec.), and were kept by a strict fast on\n Wednesday, Friday and Saturday with a Sabbath vigil.\n\n \u00a7 56.3. =The Reckoning of Easter.=--At the Council of Nic\u00e6a in\n A.D. 325 the Roman mode of observing Easter prevailed over that\n of Asia Minor (\u00a7 37, 2). Those who adhered to the latter method\n were regarded as a sect (_Quartadecimani_ \u03a4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9).\n The Council decreed that the first day of full moon after the\n spring equinox should be regarded as the 14th Nisan, and that the\n festival of the resurrection should be celebrated on the Sunday\n following. The bishop of Alexandria undertook the astronomical\n determination of the festival on each occasion, because there\n astronomical studies were most diligently prosecuted. He\n published yearly, usually about Epiphany, a circular letter,\n _Liber paschalis_, giving to the other churches the result of\n the calculation, and took advantage generally of the opportunity\n to discuss the ecclesiastical questions of the day. First of all\n at Alexandria, probably to prevent for all time a combination\n of the Jewish and Christian Easter festivals, the practice was\n introduced of keeping the feast when the 14th and 16th of the\n new moon fell upon Friday and Sunday, not on the same Sunday\n but eight days later,--a practice which Rome also, and with her\n a great part of the West, adopted in the 5th century (\u00a7 77, 3).\n A further difference existed as to the point of time with\n which the day of full moon was to be regarded as beginning.\n The Easter Canon of Hippolytus (\u00a7 31, 3) had calculated it in\n a very unsatisfactory manner according to a sixteen-years\u2019 cycle\n of the moon, after the course of which the day of full moon would\n again occur on the same day of the year. In Alexandria the more\n exact nineteen-years\u2019 cycle of Anatolius was adopted, according\n to which the day of full moon had an aberration of about one\n day only in 310 years, and even this was caused rather by\n the imperfection of the Julian year of 365 days with three\n intercalary days in 400 years. But in Rome the reckoning was\n made as the basis of an eighty-four years\u2019 cycle which had indeed\n the advantage of completing itself not only on the same day of\n the year but on the same day of the week; while, on the other\n hand, it had this drawback that after eighty-four years it had\n fallen about a day behind the actual day of full moon. There was\n also this further difference that in Alexandria the 21st of March\n was regarded as the day when day and night were equal, and at\n Rome, but wrongly, the 18th of March. The cycle of 532 (28 \u2715 19)\n years reckoned in A.D. 452 by Victorius, a bishop of Aquitaine,\n was assimilated to the Alexandrian, without, however, losing\n the advantage of the eighty-four years\u2019 cycle above referred\n to, which, however, it succeeded in obtaining only by once in\n every period of nineteen years fixing the equinox on the 20th\n of March. The Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus (\u00a7 47, 23), finally,\n in A.D. 525 harmonized the Roman and the Alexandrian reckoning\n by setting up a ninety-five years\u2019 cycle (5 \u2715 19), and this cycle\n was introduced throughout all the West by Isidore of Seville\n and the Venerable Bede (\u00a7 90, 2). The error occasioned by the\n inexactness of the Julian calendar continued till the Gregorian\n reform of the calendar (\u00a7 149, 3).\n\n \u00a7 56.4. =The Easter Festivals.=--The pre-eminence of the\n Christian festival of victory (the resurrection) over that\n of suffering, especially among the Greeks, led, even in the\n 4th century to the former as the fruit of the latter being drawn\n into the paschal season, and distinguished as \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\n from that as \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, and also at last to the adoption\n of the one name of Paschal or Easter Festival and to the regarding\n of the whole Quadragesima season as a preparation for Easter.\n The Saxon name Easter is derived from the old German festival\n of Ostara the goddess of spring which was celebrated at the same\n season.--With the beginning of the Quadragesima the whole mode\n of life assumes a new form. All amusements were stopped, all\n criminal trials sisted and the din of traffic in streets and\n markets as far as possible restricted. The East exempted Sunday\n and Sabbath from the obligation of fasting, with the exception\n of the last Sabbath as the day of Christ\u2019s rest in the grave,\n but the West exempted only Sunday. Gregory the Great, therefore,\n fixed the beginning of the Quadragesima on Wednesday of the\n seventh week before Easter, _Caput jejunii, Dies cinerum_, Ash\n Wednesday, so called because the bishop strewed ashes on the\n heads of believers with a warning reference to Gen. iii. 19,\n comp. xviii. 27. With the Tuesday preceding, Shrove Tuesday\n (from _shrive_, to confess), ended the carnival season (_carni\n valedicere_) which, beginning with 6th Jan. or the feast of the\n three holy kings, reached its climax in the last days, from three\n to eight, before Ash Wednesday. On this closing day the people\n generally sought indemnification for the approaching strict\n fast by an unmeasured abandoning of themselves to pleasure. From\n Italy where this custom arose and was most fully carried out,\n it subsequently found its way into the other lands of the West.\n In opposition to these unspiritual proceedings the period of\n the Easter festivals was begun three weeks earlier with the 10th\n Sunday before Easter (_Septuagesima_). The Hallelujah of the Mass\n was silenced, weddings were no more celebrated (_Tempus clausum_),\n monks and clerics already began the fast. The Quadragesima\n festival reached its climax in the last, the _great_ week. It\n began with Palm Sunday (\u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u0390\u03c9\u03bd) and ended with the great\n Sabbath, the favourite time for baptisms (Rom. vi. 3). Thursday\n as the memorial day of the institution of the Lord\u2019s Supper,\n and Friday as the day of Christ\u2019s death, Good Friday, were days\n of special importance. A solemn night service, Easter vigils,\n marked the transition to the joyous Easter celebrations. The old\n legend that on this night Christ\u2019s second coming would take place\n rendered the service peculiarly solemn. Easter morning began with\n the jubilant greeting: The Lord is risen, and the response, He is\n risen indeed. On the following Sunday, the Easter Octave, _Pascha\n clausum_, \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1, the Easter festival was brought to a close.\n Those baptized on the great Sabbath wore for the last time their\n white baptismal dress. Hence this sabbath was called _Dominica\n in albis_; subsequently, in accordance with the Introitus\n from 1 Pet. ii. 2, Quasimodogeniti; and by the Greeks, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\n \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae. The joyous celebrations of Easter extended over all\n the Quinquagesima period between Easter and Pentecost. Ascension\n day, _Festum ascensionis_, \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, and Pentecost,\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae, were introduced as high festivals by vigil services;\n and the latter was concluded by the Pentecost-Octave, by the\n Greeks called \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd and at a much later\n date styled by the Latins Trinity Sunday. The Festival-Octaves,\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, had an Old Testament pattern in the \u05e2\u05b2\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea of the Feast\n of Tabernacles, Lev. xxiii. 26.\n\n \u00a7 56.5. =The Christmas Festivals.=--The first traces of the\n Christmas festival (_Natalis Christi_, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1) in the Roman\n church are found about A.D. 360. Some decades later they appear\n in the Eastern church. The late introduction of this festival\n is to be explained from the disregard of the birthday and the\n prominence given to the day of the death of Christ in the ancient\n church; but Chrysostom even regarded it as the \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. Since the 25th of March as the spring equinox was\n held as the day of creation, the day of the incarnation, the\n conception of Christ, the second Adam, as the beginning of the\n new creation was held on the same day, and hence 25th Dec. was\n chosen as the day of Christ\u2019s birth. The Christian festival thus\n coincided nearly with the heathen _Saturnalia_, in memory of\n the Golden Age, from 17th to 23rd Dec., the _Sigillaria_, on\n the 24th Dec., when children were presented with dolls and images\n of clay and wax, sigilla, and the _Brumalia_, on 25th Dec., _Dies\n natalis invicti solis_, the winter solstice. It was considered\n no mere chance coincidence that Christ, the eternal Sun,\n should be born just on this day. The Christmas festival too\n was introduced by a vigil and lasted for eight days, which in\n the 6th century became the _Festum circumcisionis_. The revelling\n that characterised the New Year Festival of the pagans, caused\n the ancient church, to observe that day as a day of penance and\n fasting. The feast of the Epiphany on the 6th Jan. (\u00a7 37, 1) was\n also introduced in the West during the 4th century but obtained\n there a Gentile-Christian colouring from Luke ii. 21 and was\n kept as the festival of the first fruits of the Gentiles and\n received the name of the Festival of the three holy kings. For\n even Tertullian in accordance with Ps. lxxii. 10 had made the\n Magi kings; it was concluded that they were three because of\n the three gifts spoken of; and Bede, about A.D. 700, gives their\n names as Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar. By others this festival\n was associated with Christ\u2019s first miracle at the marriage in\n Cana, and also with the feeding of the 5,000 in the wilderness.\n After the analogy of the Easter festival since the 6th century\n a longer preliminary celebration has been connected with the\n Christmas festival. In the Eastern church, beginning with the\n 14th of Nov., it embraced six Sundays with forty fast days, as\n the second Quadragesima of the year. In the Latin church, as\n the season of Advent, it had only four Sundays, with a three\n weeks\u2019 fast.\n\n \u00a7 56.6. =The Church Year= was in the East a symbolic adaptation\n of the natural year only in so far as it brought with it the\n Christianising of the Jewish festivals and the early recognition\n of Western ideas about the feasts. Only on the high festivals,\n Christmas, Easter and Pentecost are they retained; on the\n other Sundays and festivals they never obtained expression.\n The Easter festival was considered the beginning of the church\n year; thereafter the Quadragesima or Epiphany; and finally,\n the Old Testament beginning of the year in September. The whole\n church year was divided into four parts according to the _Lectio\n continua_ of the gospel, and the Sundays were named thereafter.\n The \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 was immediately after Pentecost.\n The =Latin Church Year= begins with the season of Advent, and\n distinguishes a _Semestre Domini_ and a _Semestre ecclesi\u00e6_.\n But only the former was fully developed: Christmas, Easter,\n Pentecost with the Sundays belonging to them, representing the\n founding, developing and completing of the history of salvation.\n To a corresponding development of the second half we find early\n contributions, _e.g._ the Feast of Peter and Paul on 29th June\n as festival of the founding of the church by the Apostles, the\n Feast of the leading martyr Laurentius (\u00a7 22, 5) on 10th August\n as memorial of the struggle prescribed to the _Ecclesia militans_,\n and the Feast of Michael on 29th September with reference to the\n completion in the _Ecclesia triumphans_. That in these feasts we\n have already the germs of the three festivals of the community\n of the church which were to correspond to the three festivals of\n the Lord\u2019s history appears significantly in the early designation\n of the Sundays after Pentecost as _Dominica post Apostolos, post\n Laurentium, post Angelos_. But it never was distinctly further\n carried out. This deeply significant distribution was overlaid\n by saint worship, which overflowed the _Semestre Domini_. The\n principle of Christianising the Pagan rites was legitimated by\n Gregory the Great. He instructed the Anglo-Saxon missionaries\n to the effect (\u00a7 77, 4), that they should convert the heathen\n temples into churches and heathen festivals into ecclesiastical\n festivals and days of martyrs, _ut dur\u00e6 mentes gradibus vel\n passibus non autem saltibus eleventur_. The saints henceforth\n take the place of gods of nature and the church year reproduced\n with a Christian colouring all the outstanding points in the\n natural year.--As the last festival connected with the history\n of the Lord, the Feast of the Glorification, \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\n was held in the East on 6th August. According to tradition\n the scene was enacted on Mt. Tabor, hence the feast was called\n \u0398\u03b1\u03b2\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. The Latin church adopted it first in the 15th century\n (_F. transfigurationis_).[170]\n\n \u00a7 56.7. =The Church Fasts= (\u00a7 37, 3).--In the Greek church the\n ordinance of fasting was more strict than in the Latin. In one\n period, however, we have a system of fasts embracing four great\n fasting seasons: The Quadragesima of Easter and of Christmas, the\n period of from three to five weeks from the Pentecost Octave (the\n Greek Feast of All Saints) to that of Peter and Paul on 29th June,\n and the fourteen days before the Ascension of Mary on 15th August.\n There were also the \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 on the evenings previous\n to other festivals; and finally, the weekly recurring fasts\n of Wednesday and Friday. The strictest was the pre-Easter fast,\n observed with gradually advancing rigidness. On Sexagesima Sunday\n flesh was eaten for the last time, then followed the so-called\n Butter week, when butter, cheese, milk and eggs were still\n allowed; but thereafter complete avoidance of all fattening\n food was enjoined, reaching during the great week to the\n utmost possible degree of abstinence. In the West instead\n of Wednesday, Saturday was taken along with Friday, and down\n to the 13th century it was enjoined that nothing should be\n eaten on these two days of the week, as also on the quarterly\n days (_quatuor tempora_) and the evenings preceding the feasts\n of the most famous Apostles and martyrs, the vigil fasts, until\n 3 p.m. (_Semijejunium_) or even till 6 p.m. (_Plenum jejunium_);\n while in the longer seasons of fasting before Easter and before\n Christmas the injunction was restricted to avoidance of all fat\n foods (_Abstinentia_).--Continuation \u00a7 115, 1.\n\n\n \u00a7 57. WORSHIP OF SAINTS, RELICS AND IMAGES.[171]\n\n Though with the times of persecution martyrdom had ceased, asceticism\nwhere it was preached with unusual severity gave a claim to canonisation\nwhich was still bestowed by the people\u2019s voice regarded as the voice of\nGod. Forgotten saints were discovered by visions, and legend insensibly\neked out the poverty of historical reminiscences with names and facts.\nThe veneration of martyrs rose all the higher the more pitiable the\npresent generation showed in its lukewarmness and worldliness over\nagainst the world-conquering faith of that great cloud of witnesses.\nThe worship of Mary, which came in as a result of the Nestorian\ncontroversy, was later of being introduced than that of the martyrs,\nbut it almost immediately shot far ahead and ranked above the adoration\nof all the other saints. The adoration of Angels, of which we find the\nbeginnings even in Justin and Origen, remained far behind the worship\nof the saints. Pilgrimages were zealously undertaken, from the time\nwhen the emperor\u2019s mother Helena, in A.D. 326, went as a pilgrim to\nholy places in Palestine and afterwards marked these out by building\non them beautiful churches. The worship of images was introduced first\nin the age of Cyril of Alexandria and was carried out with peculiar\neagerness in the art-loving East. The Western teachers, however,\nand even Gregory the Great himself, only went the length of becoming\ndecoration, using images to secure more impressiveness in teaching and\ngreater liveliness in devotion. In the West, however, still more than\nin the East, veneration of relics came into vogue.\n\n \u00a7 57.1. =The Worship of Martyrs and Saints= (\u00a7 39, 5).[172]--At\n a very early period churches were built upon the graves of\n Martyrs (_Memoria_, _Confessio_, \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), or their bones\n were brought into churches previously built (_Translationes_).\n New edifices were dedicated in their names, those receiving\n baptism were named after them. The days of their death were\n observed as special holy seasons with vigil services, Agape\n and oblations at their graves. In glowing discourses the orators\n of the church, in melodious hymns the poets, sounded forth\n their praises. The bones of the martyrs were sought out with\n extraordinary zeal and were looked upon and venerated as\n supremely sacred. Each province, each city and each calling\n had its own patron saint (_Patronus_). Perhaps as early as the\n 3rd century several churches had their martyr calendars, _i.e._\n lists of those who were to have the day of their death celebrated.\n In the 4th century this custom had become universal, and from the\n collection of the most celebrated calendars, with the addition\n of legendary stories of the lives and sufferings of martyrs or\n saints (_Legend\u00e6_, so called because they were wont to be _read_\n at the memorial services of the individuals referred to), sprang\n up the _Martyrologies and Legends of the Saints_, among the\n Greeks called _Menologies_ from \u03bc\u03ae\u03bd, a month. Most esteemed\n in the West was the martyrology of the Roman church, whose\n composition has been recently put down, equally with and upon\n the same grounds as that of the so called _Liber Comitis_,\n \u00a7 59, 3, to the time of Jerome as the chief representative of\n Western theological learning. This collection formed the basis\n of the numerous Latin martyrologies of the Middle Ages (\u00a7 90, 9).\n A rich choice was afforded by these catalogues of saints to\n those wishing names to use at baptism or confirmation; the saint\n preferred became thereby the patron of him who took his name. The\n three great Cappadocians in the East and Ambrose in the West were\n the first to open the floodgates for the invocation of saints\n by their proclaiming that the glorified saints through communion\n with the Lord shared in His attribute of omniprescence and\n omniscience; while Augustine rather assigned to the angels\n the task of communicating the invocations of men to the saints.\n In the liturgies prayers for the saints were now displaced by\n invocations for their intercession. In this the people found\n a compensation for the loss of hero, genius and _manes_ worship.\n The church teachers at least wished indeed to make a marked\n distinction between _Adoratio_ and _Invocatio_, \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 and\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, rendering the former to God only. A festival of All the\n Martyrs was celebrated in the East as early as the 4th century\n on the Pentecost octave (\u00a7 56, 4). In the West, Pope Boniface IV.,\n in A.D. 610, having received from the Emperor Phocas the Pantheon\n as a gift and having converted it into a church of the most\n Blessed Virgin and all the Martyrs, founded a _Festum omnium\n Sanctorum_, which was not, however, generally recognised before\n the 9th century (1st Nov.). Owing to the great number of saints\n one or more had to be assigned to each day in the calendar. The\n day fixed was usually that of the death of the saint. The only\n instance of the celebration of a birthday was the festival\n of John the Baptist (_Natalis S. Joannis_). The 24th June was\n fixed upon by calculating from Christmas (acc. to Luke i. 26),\n and its occurring in the other half of the year from that of\n Christ afforded a symbolical parallel to John iii. 30. As an\n appendage to this we meet even in the 5th century with the\n _F. decollationis S. Joannis_ on 29th Aug. On the second day\n of the Christmas festival the Feast of the Proto-martyr Stephen\n was celebrated as the first fruits of the incarnation of God;\n on the third, the memory of the disciple who lay on the Master\u2019s\n breast; on the fourth, the innocent children of Bethlehem\n (_F. innocentium_) as the _flores_ or _primiti\u00e6 martyrum_. The\n festival of the Maccabees (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03ba\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd) leads yet\n further back as the memorial of the heroic mother and her seven\n sons under Antiochus Epiphanes. It was observed as early as the\n 4th century and did not pass out of use till the 13th. Among the\n festivals of Apostles that of Peter and Paul (_F. Apost. Petri\n et Pauli_) on 29th June, as the solemnization of their common\n martyrdom at Rome, was universally observed. But Rome celebrated\n besides a double _F. Cathedr\u00e6 Petri_, for the _Cathedra Romana_\n on 18th Jan., and for the _Cathedra Antiochena_ on 22nd Feb.\n For a long time a symbolical arrangement of the calendar days\n prevailed; the patriarchs of the Old Testament were put in the\n time before Christmas, the later saints of the old dispensation\n in the Quadragesima, and the Apostles and Founders of the church\n after Pentecost, then the Martyrs, next the Confessors, and\n finally, the Virgins as prototype of the perfected church.\n\n \u00a7 57.2. =The Worship of Mary and Anna.=[173]--The \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03be\u03af who herself full of the Holy Ghost had prophesied: \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\n \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03af, was regarded\n as the highest ideal of all virginity. All the reverence, which\n the church accorded to virginity, culminated therefore in her.\n Even Tertullian alongside of the Pauline contrasts Adam and\n Christ, placed this other, Eve and Mary. The _perpetua virginitas\n b. Mari\u00e6_ was an uncontested article of faith from the 4th century.\n Ambrose understood of her Ezek. xliv. 3, and affirmed that she\n was born _utero clauso_; Gregory the Great saw an analogy between\n this and the entering of the Risen One through closed doors\n (John xx. 19); and the second Trullan Council, in A.D. 692,\n confessed: \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.\n Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, had indeed\n still found something in her worthy of blame, but even Augustine\n refuses to admit that she should be reckoned among sinners: _Unde\n enim scimus, quid ei plus grati\u00e6 collatum fuerit ad vincendum\n omni ex parte peccatum?_ Yet for a long time this veneration of\n Mary made little progress. This was caused partly by the absence\n of the glory of martyrdom, partly by its development in the\n church being forestalled and distorted by the heathenish and\n godless Mariolatry of the Collyridians, an Arabian female sect\n of the 4th century, which offered to the Holy Virgin, as in\n heathen times to Ceres, cakes of bread (\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1). Epiphanius,\n who opposed them, taught: \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1fc7 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c9.\n On the Antidicomarianites, see \u00a7 62, 2. The victory of those who\n used the term \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 in the Nestorian controversy gave a great\n impulse to Mariolatry. Even in the 5th century, the festival\n of the Annunciation, _F. annunciationis, incarnationis_, \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6, was held on the 25th March.\n With this was also connected in the West the festival of the\n Purification of Mary, _F. purificationis_ on 2nd Feb., according\n to Luke ii. 22. On account of the candles used in the service\n it was called the Candlemas of Mary, _F. candelarum, luminum_,\n Luke ii. 32. In consequence of an earthquake and pestilence in\n A.D. 542, Justinian founded the corresponding \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2,\n _F. occursus_, only that here the meeting with Simeon and Anna\n (Luke ii. 24) is put in the foreground. Both festivals, the\n Annunciation and the Purification, had the same dignity as those\n dedicated to the memory of our Lord. From the endeavour to put\n alongside of each of the festivals of the Lord a corresponding\n festival of Mary, about the end of the 6th century the Feast\n of the Ascension of Mary (\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, _F. assumptionis,\n dormitionis M._) was introduced and celebrated on 15th Aug.;\n and in the 7th century, the Feast of the Birth of Mary (_F.\n nativitatis M._), on 8th Sept. The former was founded on the\n apocryphal legend (\u00a7 32, 4), according to which Christ with the\n angels brought the soul of his just departed mother, and, on the\n following day, its glorified body, to heaven, and there united\n it again with the soul.--The first traces of a =veneration of\n Anna= around whom, as the supposed wife of Joachim and mother of\n the Virgin, the apocryphal gospels of the childhood had already\n gathered a mass of romantic details, are found in the 4th century\n in Gregory of Nyssa and Epiphanius. Justinian I. in A.D. 550\n built a church of St. Anna in Constantinople. In the East the\n 25th of July was celebrated as the day of her death, the 9th Sept.\n as the day of her marriage, and the 9th Dec. as the day of her\n conception. In the West the veneration of Anna was later of being\n introduced. It became popular in the later Middle Ages and was\n made obligatory on the whole catholic church by Gregory XIII.\n in A.D. 1584. The day fixed was 26th July. Yet Leo III. in the\n 8th century had allowed a pictorial representation of the legend\n of St. Joachim and St. Anna to be put in the church of St. Paul\n in Rome.--Continuation \u00a7 104, 7, 8.\n\n \u00a7 57.3. =Worship of Angels.=--The idea of guardian angels\n of nations, cities, individuals, was based on Deut. xxxii. 8\n (in the LXX.); Dan. x. 13, 20, 21; xii. 1; Matt. xviii. 10;\n Acts xii. 15, even as early as the 2nd century. Ambrose\n required the invocation of angels. But when the Phrygian sect\n of the Angelians carried the practice the length of idolatrous\n worship, the Council at Laodicea in the 4th century opposed\n it, and Epiphanius placed it in his list of heresies. Supposed\n manifestations of the Archangel Michael led to the institution\n from the 5th century of the feast of Michael observed on 29th\n Sept., as a festival of the angels collectively representing\n the idea of the church triumphant.\n\n \u00a7 57.4. =Worship of Images= (\u00a7 38, 3).--The disinclination of\n the ancient church to the pictorial representations of the person\n of Christ as such, and also the unwillingness to allow religious\n pictures in the churches, based upon the prohibition of images\n in the decalogue, was not yet wholly overcome in the 4th century.\n Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea, with reference to the statues of Paneas\n (\u00a7 13, 2) and other images of Christ and the Apostles, speaks\n of an \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1. He administered a severe reproof to the\n emperor\u2019s sister, Constantia, and referred to the prohibition\n of the decalogue, when she expressed a wish to have an image\n of Christ. Asterius, bishop of Amasa in Pontus (\u2020 A.D. 410),\n earnestly declaimed against the custom of people of distinction\n wearing clothes embroidered with pictures from the gospel history,\n and recommends them rather to have Christ in their hearts. The\n violent zealot, Epiphanius, the most decided opponent of all\n religious idealism, tore the painted curtain of a Palestinian\n village church in Anablatha with the injunction to wrap therewith\n a beggar\u2019s corpse. But Greek love of art and the religious needs\n of the people gained the victory over Judaic-legal rigorism\n and abstract spiritualism. Here too the age of Cyril marks\n the turning point. In the 5th century authentic miraculous\n pictures of Christ, the Apostles and the God-mother (\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9), made their appearance, and with them began image\n worship properly so called, with lighting of candles, kissing,\n burning incense, bowing of the knee, prostrations (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae). Soon all churches and church books, all palaces\n and cottages, were filled with images of Christ and the saints\n painted or drawn by the monks. Miracle after miracle was wrought\n beside, upon or through them. In this, however, the West did not\n keep pace with the East. Augustine complains of image worship\n and advises to seek Christ in the bible rather than in images.\n Gregory the Great, while blaming the violence of Serenus, bishop\n of Massilia in breaking the images, wishes that in churches\n images should be made to serve _ad instruendas solummodo mentes\n nescientium_. The Nestorians who were strongly opposed to images,\n expressly declared that the hated Cyril was the originator of\n _Iconolatry_.\n\n \u00a7 57.5. =Worship of Relics= (\u00a7 39, 5).--The veneration for\n relics (\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1) proceeded from a pious feeling in human nature\n and is closely associated with that higher reverence which the\n church paid to its martyrs. It began with public assemblies\n at the graves of martyrs, memorial celebrations and services\n in connection with the translations of their bones held in\n the churches. Soon no church, no altar (Rev. vi. 9), could be\n built without relics. When the small number of known martyrs\n proved insufficient, single parts of their bodies were divided\n to different churches. But dreams and visions showed rich stores\n previously unthought of in remnants of the bones of martyrs\n and saints. The catacombs especially proved inexhaustible mines.\n Miracles and signs vouched for their genuineness. Theodosius I.\n already found it necessary in A.D. 386, to prohibit the traffic\n in relics. Besides bones, were included also clothes, utensils,\n instruments of torture. They healed the sick, cast out devils,\n raised the dead, averted plagues, and led to the discovery of\n offenders. The healed expressed their gratitude in votive tablets\n and in presentations of silver and golden figures of the healed\n parts. A scriptural foundation was sought for this veneration of\n relics in 2 Kings xiii. 21; Ecclesiastic. xlvi. 14; Acts xix. 12.\n According to a legend commonly believed in the 5th century,\n but unknown to Eusebius and the Bordeaux pilgrim of A.D. 333,\n Helena, mother of Constantine, found in A.D. 326 the Cross of\n Christ along with the crosses of the two thieves. The one was\n distinguished from the others by a miracle of healing or of\n raising from the dead. The pious lady left one half of the cross\n to the church of the Holy Sepulchre and sent the rest with the\n nails to her son, who inlaid the wood in his statues and some of\n the nails in his diadem, while of the rest he made a bit for his\n horse. Since the publication of the _Doctrina Addaei_, \u00a7 32, 6,\n it has become apparent that this Helena legend is just another\n version of the old Edessa legend about the Byzantine saint,\n according to which the wife of the emperor Claudius converted\n by Peter is represented in precisely similar circumstances as\n having found the cross. To pious and distinguished pilgrims\n permission was given to take small splinters of the wood\n kept in Jerusalem, so that soon bits of the cross were spread\n and received veneration throughout all the world. According\n to a much later report a \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 on 14th Sept. was\n observed in the East as early as the 4th century in memory of\n the finding of the cross. From the time of Gregory the Great a\n _F. inventionis S. Crucis_ was observed in the West on 3rd May.\n The festival of the exaltation of the cross, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, _F.\n exaltationis S. Crucis_, on 14th Sept., was instituted by the\n emperor Heraclius when the Persians on their being conquered\n in A.D. 629, were obliged to restore the cross which they had\n taken away.\n\n \u00a7 57.6. =The Making of Pilgrimages.=--The habit of making\n pilgrimages (pilgrim=peregrinus) to sacred places also rested\n upon a common tendency in human nature. The pilgrimage of Helena\n in A.D. 326 found numerous imitators, and even the conquest\n of Palestine by the Saracens in the 7th century did not quench\n pilgrims\u2019 ardour. Next to the sacred places in Palestine, Sinai,\n the grave of Peter and Paul at Rome (_Limina Apostolorum_), the\n grave of Martin of Tours (\u00a7 47, 14) and the supposed scene in\n Arabia of the sufferings of Job, as a foreshadowing of Christ\u2019s,\n were the spots most frequented by pilgrims. Gregory of Nyssa\n in an Epistle \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1 most vigorously\n opposed the immoderate love of pilgrimages, especially among\n monks and women. In the strongest language he pointed out the\n danger to true religion and morality; and even Jerome so far\n gave way to reason as to say: _Et de Hierosolymis et de Brittania\n \u00e6qualiter patet aula c\u0153lestis_. Chrysostom and Augustine, too,\n opposed the over estimating of this expression of pious feeling.\n\n\n\n\n \u00a7 58. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.\n\n During this period nothing was definitely established as to the idea\nand number of the sacraments (\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1). The name was applied to the\ndoctrines of grace in so far as they transcended the comprehension of\nthe human understanding, as well as to those solemn acts of worship by\nwhich grace was communicated and appropriated in an incomprehensible\nmanner to believers, so that only in the 12th century (\u00a7 104, 2) were\nthe consecrations and blessings hitherto included therein definitely\nexcluded from the idea of the sacrament under the name Sacramentalia.\nIt was, however, from the first clearly understood that Baptism and the\nLord\u2019s Supper were essentially the sacramental means of grace. Yet even\nin the 3rd century, anointing and laying on of hands as an independent\nsacrament of Confirmation (_Confirmatio_, \u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1) was separated\nfrom the idea of baptism, and in the West, from the administration\nof baptism. The reappearance of the idea of a special priesthood as\na divine institution (\u00a7 34, 4) gave also to Ordination the importance\nof a sacrament (\u00a7 45, 1). Augustine whom the Pelagians accused\nof teaching by his doctrine of original sin and concupiscence that\nGod-ordained marriage was sinful, designated Christian marriage, with\nreference to Eph. v. 32, a sacrament (\u00a7 61, 2) in order more decidedly\nto have it placed under the point of view of the nature sanctified by\ngrace. Pseudo-Dionysius, in the 6th century (\u00a7 47, 11), enumerates six\nsacraments: Baptism, Chrism, Lord\u2019s Supper, Consecration of Priests\nand Monks and the Anointing of the Dead (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd). On Extreme\nUnction, comp. \u00a7 61, 3.\n\n \u00a7 58.1. =Administration of Baptism= (\u00a7 35, 4).--The postponing\n of baptism from lukewarmness, superstition or doctrinal prejudice,\n was a very frequent occurrence. The same obstacles down to the\n 6th century stood in the way of infant baptism being regarded\n as necessary. Gregory of Nyssa wrote \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, and with him all the church fathers earnestly\n opposed the error. In case of need (_in periculo mortis_) it\n was allowed even by Tertullian that baptism might be dispensed\n by any baptized layman, but not by women. The institution of\n godfather was universal and founded a spiritual relationship\n within which marriage was prohibited not only between the\n godparents themselves, but also between those and the baptized\n and their children. The usual ceremonies preceding baptism were:\n The covering of the head by the catechumens and the uncovering\n on the day of baptism; the former to signify the warding\n off every distraction and the withdrawing into oneself. With\n exorcism was connected the ceremony of breathing upon (John\n xx. 22), the touching of the ears with the exclamation: Ephphatha\n (Mark vii. 34), marking the brow and breast with the sign of\n the cross; in Africa also the giving of salt acc. to Mark ix. 50,\n in Italy the handing over of a gold piece as a symbol of the\n pound (Luke xiii. 12 f.) entrusted in the grace of baptism. The\n conferring of a new name signified entrance into a new life.\n At the renunciation the baptized one turned him to the setting\n sun with the words: \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u1fb6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3\n \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5; to the rising sun with the words: \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03af \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad.\n The dipping was thrice repeated: in the Spanish church, in the\n anti-Arian interest, only once. Sprinkling was still confined\n to _Baptismus Clinicorum_ and was first generally used in the\n West in infant baptism in the 12th century, while the East still\n retained the custom of immersion.\n\n \u00a7 58.2. =The Doctrine of the Supper= (\u00a7 36, 5).--The doctrine\n of the Lord\u2019s Supper was never the subject of Synodal discussion,\n and its conception on the part of the fathers was still in a high\n degree uncertain and vacillating. All regarded the holy supper as\n a supremely holy, ineffable mystery (\u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, _tremendum_), and\n all were convinced that bread and wine in a supernatural manner\n were brought into relation to the body and blood of Christ; but\n some conceived of this relation spiritualistically as a dynamic\n effect, others realistically as a substantial importation to\n the elements, while most vacillated still between these two\n views. Almost all regarded the miracle thus wrought as \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae,\n _Transfiguratio_, using this expression, however, also of the\n water of baptism and the anointing oil. The spiritualistic theory\n prevailed among the Origenists, most decidedly with Eusebius of\n C\u00e6sarea, less decidedly with Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen,\n and again very decidedly with Pseudo-Dionysius. In the West\n Augustine and his disciples, even including Leo the Great, favour\n the spiritualistic view. With Augustine the spiritualistic view\n was a consequence of his doctrine of predestination; only to the\n believer, _i.e._ to the elect can the heavenly food be imparted.\n Yet he often expresses himself very strongly in a realistic\n manner. The realistic view was divided into a dyophysitic or\n consubstantial and a monophysitic or transubstantial theory.\n A decided tendency toward the idea of transubstantiation was\n shown by Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Hilary of Poitiers,\n and Ambrose. The view of Gregory of Nyssa is peculiar: As by\n Christ during His earthly life food and drink by assimilation\n passed into the substance of His body, so now bread and wine\n by the almighty operation of God by means of consecration is\n changed into the glorified body of Christ and by our partaking\n of them are assimilated to our bodies. The opposing views were\n more sharply distinguished in consequence of the Nestorian\n controversy, but the consistent development of dyophysitism\n in the eucharistic field was first carried out by Theodoret\n and Pope Gelasius (\u2020 A.D. 496). The former says: \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1\n \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; and the latter: _Esse non desinit\n substantia vel natura panis et vini.... Hoc nobis in ipso Christo\n Domino sentiendum_ (Christological), _quod in ejus imagine_\n (Eucharistical), _profitemur_. The massive concrete popular\n faith had long before converted the \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae into an essential,\n substantial transformation. Thence this view passed over into\n the liturgies. Gallican and Syrian liturgies of the 5th century\n express themselves unhesitatingly in this direction. Also\n the tendency to lose the creaturely in the divine which still\n continued after the victory of Dyophysitism at Chalcedon, told\n in favour of the development of the dogma and about the end of\n our period the doctrine of Transubstantiation was everywhere\n prevalent.[174]--Continuation \u00a7 91, 3.\n\n \u00a7 58.3. =The Sacrifice of the Mass= (\u00a7 36, 6).--Even in the\n 4th century the body of Christ presented by consecration in\n the Supper was designated a sacrifice, but only in the sense\n of a representation of the sacrifice of Christ once offered.\n Gradually, however, the theory prevailed of a sacramental\n memorial celebration of the sacrifice of Christ in that of\n an unbloody but actual repetition of the same. To this end\n many other elements than those mentioned in \u00a7 36, 6 co-operated.\n Such were especially the rhetorical figures and descriptions\n of ecclesiastical orators, who transferred the attributes of the\n one sacrifice to its repeated representations; the re-adoption of\n the idea of a priesthood (\u00a7 34, 4) which demanded a corresponding\n conception of sacrifice; the pre-eminent place given to the\n doctrine of sacraments; the tendency to place the sacrament\n under the point of view of a magically acting divine power, etc.\n The sacrificial idea, however, obtained its completion in its\n application to the doctrine of Purgatory by Gregory the Great\n (\u00a7 61, 4). The _oblationes pro defunctis_ which had been in use\n from early times became now masses for the souls of individuals;\n their purpose was not the enjoyment of the body and blood\n of Christ by the living and the securing thereby continued\n communion with the departed, but only the renewing and repeating\n of the atoning sacrifice for the salvation of the souls of the\n dead, _i.e._ for the moderating and shortening of purgatorial\n sufferings. The redeeming power of the sacrifice of the eucharist\n was then in an analogous manner applied to the alleviation of\n earthly calamities, sufferings and misfortunes, in so far as\n these were viewed as punishments for sin. For such ends, then,\n it was enough that the sacrificing priest should perform the\n service (_Miss\u00e6 solitari\u00e6_, Private Masses). The partaking\n of the membership was at last completely withdrawn from the\n regular public services and confined to special festival\n seasons.--Continuation \u00a7 88, 3.\n\n \u00a7 58.4. =The Administration of the Lord\u2019s Supper.=--The sharp\n distinction between the _Missa Catechumenorum_ and the _Missa\n Fidelium_ (\u00a7 36, 2, 3) lost its significance after the general\n introduction of infant baptism, and the name _Missa_, mass, was\n now restricted to the ordinance of the Lord\u2019s Supper properly so\n called. In the Eastern and North African churches the communion\n of children continued common; the Western church forbade it in\n accordance with 1 Cor. xi. 28, 29. The _Communis sub una_ (sc.\n _specie_), _i.e._ with bread only, was regarded as a Manich\u00e6an\n heresy (\u00a7 29, 3). Only in North Africa was it exceptionally\n allowed in children\u2019s communion, after a little girl from natural\n aversion to wine had vomited it up. In the East, as early as the\n 4th century, one observance of the Lord\u2019s Supper in the year was\n regarded as sufficient; but Western Councils of the 5th century\n insisted upon its observance every Sunday and threatened with\n excommunication everyone who did not communicate at least on\n the three great festivals. The elements of the supper were still\n brought as presents by the members of the church. The bread\n was that in common use, therefore usually leavened. The East\n continued this practice, but the West subsequently, on symbolical\n grounds, introduced the use of unleavened bread. The colour of\n the wine was regarded as immaterial. Subsequently white wine was\n preferred as being free from the red colouring matter. The mixing\n of the wine with water was held to be essential, and was grounded\n upon John xix. 34; or regarded as significant of the two natures\n in Christ. Only the Armenian Monophysites used unmixed wine.\n The bread was broken. To the sick was often brought in the\n East instead of the separate elements bread dipped in wine.\n Subsequently also, first in children\u2019s communion and in the\n Greek church only, bread and wine together were presented in\n a spoon. The consecrated elements were called \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 after\n 1 Cor. x. 16. The \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 left over (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1) were after\n communion divided among the clergy. At a later period only so\n much was consecrated as it was thought would be needed for use\n at one time. The overplus of unconsecrated oblations was blessed\n and distributed among the non-communicants, the catechumens\n and penitents. The name \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 was now applied to those\n elements that had only been blessed which were also designated\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1. The old custom of sending to other churches or bishops\n consecrated sacramental elements as a sign of ecclesiastical\n fellowship was forbidden by the Council at Laodicea in the\n 4th century.--Continuation \u00a7 104, 3.\n\n\n \u00a7 59. PUBLIC WORSHIP IN WORD AND SYMBOL.\n\n The text of the sermon was generally taken from the bible portion\npreviously read. The liturgy attained a rich development, but the\nliturgies of the Latin and Greek churches were fundamentally different\nfrom one another. Scripture Psalms, Songs of Praise with Doxologies\nformed the main components of the church service of song. Gnostics\n(\u00a7 27, 5), Arians (\u00a7 50, 1), Apollinarians and Donatists found hymns\nof their own composition very popular. The church was obliged to outbid\nthem in this. The Council at Laodicea, however, in A.D. 360, sought to\nhave all \u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af banished from the church, probably in order\nto prevent heretical poems being smuggled in. The Western church did\nnot discuss the subject; and Chrysostom at least adorned the nightly\nprocessions which the rivalry of the Arians in Constantinople obliged\nhim to make, with the solemn singing of hymns.\n\n \u00a7 59.1. =The Holy Scriptures= (\u00a7 36, 7, 8).--The doubts about\n the genuineness of particular New Testament writings which\n had existed in the days of Eusebius, had now greatly lessened.\n Fourteen years after Eusebius, Athanasius in his 39th Festal\n Letter of A.D. 367 gave a list of canonical scriptures in which\n the Eusebian antilegomena of the first class (\u00a7 36, 8) were\n without more ado enumerated among the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1. From these\n he distinguished the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Esther,\n Judith, and Tobit, as well as the \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\n and the Shepherd of Hermas as \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1, _i.e._ as books\n which from their excellent moral contents had been used by\n the fathers in teaching the catechumens and which should be\n recommended as affording godly reading. The Council at Laodicea\n gave a Canon in which we miss only the Apocalypse of John,\n objected to probably on account of the unfavourable view of\n chiliasm entertained by the church at that time (\u00a7 33, 9);\n as regards the Old Testament it expressly limited the public\n readings in churches to the 22 bks. of the Hebrew canon. The\n Council at Hippo, in A.D. 393, gave synodic sanction for the\n first time in the West to that Canon of the New Testament which\n has from that time been accepted.--The question as to the value\n of the books added to the Old Testament in the LXX. remained\n undecided down to the time of the Reformation. The Greek church\n kept to the Athanasian distinction of these as \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\n from the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, until the confession of Dositheus in\n A.D. 1629 (\u00a7 152, 3) in its anti-Calvinistic zeal maintained\n that even those books should be acknowledged as \u03b3\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7. In the North African church Tertullian and Cyprian\n had characterized them without distinction as holy scripture.\n Augustine followed them, though not altogether without hesitation:\n _Maccab. scripturam non habent Jud\u00e6i ... sed recepta est ab\n ecclesia non inutilitor, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur_; and\n the Synods at Hippo in A.D. 393 and at Carthage in A.D. 397 and\n A.D. 419 put them without question into their list of canonical\n books, adding this, however, that they would ask the opinion of\n the transmarine churches on the matter. Meanwhile too in Rome\n this view had prevailed and Innocent I. in A.D. 405 expressly\n homologated the African list. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus on\n the other hand upheld the view of Athanasius, and Jerome in his\n _Prologus galeatus_ after enumerating the books of the Hebrew\n Canon went so far as to say: _Quidquid extra hos est, inter\n Apocrypha ponendum_, and elsewhere calls the addition to Daniel\n merely _n\u00e6ni\u00e6_. In the _Pr\u00e6fatio in libros Salom._, he expresses\n himself more favourably of the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus,\n Judith, Tobit and Maccabees: _legit quidem ecclesia, sed inter\n canonicas scripturas non recipit ... legat ad \u00e6dificationem\n plebis sed non ad auctoritatem dogmatum confirmandam_. This\n view prevailed throughout the whole of the Middle Ages among\n the most prominent churches down to the meeting of the Council\n of Trent (\u00a7 136, 4); whereas the Tridentine fathers owing\n to the rejection of the books referred to by the Protestants\n (\u00a7 161, 8), and their actual or supposed usefulness in supporting\n anti-Protestant dogmas, _e.g._ the meritoriousness of good works,\n Tob. iv. 11, 12; intercession of saints, 2 Macc. xv. 12-14;\n veneration of relics, Ecclus. xlvi. 14; xlix. 12; masses\n for souls and prayers for the dead, 2 Macc. xii. 43-46, felt\n themselves constrained to pronounce them canonical.--The\n inconvenient _Scriptio continua_ in the biblical Codices led\n first of all the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius, about A.D. 460,\n by stichometric copies of the New Testament in which every line\n (\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2) embraced as much as with regard to the sense could\n be read without a pause. He also undertook a division of the\n Apostolic Epistles and the Acts into chapters (\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1). An\n Alexandrian church teacher, Ammonius, even earlier than this,\n in arranging for a harmony of the gospels had divided the gospels\n in 1,165 chapters and added to the 355 chapters of Matthew\u2019s\n gospel the number of the chapter of parallel passages in the\n other gospels. Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea completed the work by his\n \u201cEvang. Canon,\u201d for he represents in ten tables which chapters\n are found in all the four, in three, in two or in one of the\n gospels.[175]--Jerome made emendations upon the corrupt text\n of the Itala by order of Damasus, bishop of Rome, and then made\n from the Hebrew a translation of the =Old Testament= of his own,\n which, joined to the revised translation of the New Testament,\n after much opposition gradually secured supremacy throughout all\n the West under the name of the =Vulgata=. The Monophysite Syrians\n got from Polycarp in A.D. 508 at the request of bishop Xenajas\n or Philoxenus of Mabug, a new slavishly literal translation of\n the New Testament. This so-called Philoxenian translation was,\n in A.D. 616, corrected by Thomas of Charcal, provided after\n the manner of the Hexapla of Origen with notes--the Harclensian\n translation--and in A.D. 617 enlarged by a translation of the\n Old Testament executed by bishop Paulus of Tella in Mesopotamia\n according to the Hexapla text of the LXX.--Diligent =Scripture\n Reading= was recommended by all the fathers, with special fervour\n by Chrysostom, to the laity as well as the clergy. Yet the\n idea gained ground that the study of Scripture was the business\n of monks and clerics. The second Trullan Council, in A.D. 692,\n forbade under severe penalties that scripture should be understood\n and expounded otherwise than had been done by the old fathers.\n\n \u00a7 59.2. =The Creeds of the Church.=\n\n I. =The Nic\u00e6no-Constantinopolitan Creed.=--The Nicene Creed\n (\u00a7 50, 1, 7) did not =in the East= succeed in dislodging\n the various forms of the Baptismal formula (\u00a7 35, 2);\n indeed, owing to the statement of this third article\n restricting itself to a mere \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n it was little fitted to become a universal symbol. But\n what the _Nic\u00e6num_ in spite of its unexampled pretensions\n never won, the so-called _Nic\u00e6no-Constantinopolitanum_\n of A.D. 451, not being chargeable with the deficiency\n referred to, actually achieved. The idea prevailing\n until quite recently that this Symbol originated at\n the so-called second \u0153cumenical Council at Constantinople\n in A.D. 381 as an enlargement of the Nicene confession,\n has now been shown to be quite erroneous. After the Romish\n theologian Vincenzi laboured to prove that this was a\n production forged by the Greeks in the interests of their\n \u201cheretical\u201d doctrine of the procedure of the Holy Spirit\n from the Father only (\u00a7 50, 7), Harnack on the basis of\n the researches of Caspari and Hort reached the following\n results: The so-called Nic\u00e6no-Constantinopolitan Creed is\n identical with the creed recommended by Epiphanius in his\n _Anchoratus_, about A.D. 373, as genuinely apostolic-Nicene;\n the creed of the Anchoratus is that which forms the subject\n of Cyril\u2019s Catechetical Lectures (\u00a7 47, 10), probably at\n a later date revised, enriched by the introduction of the\n most important phrases from the Nic\u00e6num and an additional\n section on the Holy Spirit (comp. \u00a7 50, 5, 7), and\n issued in his own name by Cyril while bishop of Jerusalem\n (A.D. 351-386) as a Baptismal formula for the church of\n Jerusalem; this new recension of the Jerusalem Symbol\n was probably laid before the Council at Constantinople\n in A.D. 381 by Cyril as a proof of his own orthodoxy that\n had always been somewhat questionable and as such passed\n over into the Acts which are now lost; thus at least is\n it most simply explained how even in A.D. 451 it could be\n quoted in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon alongside\n of the Nicene as the Constantinopolitan; in proportion\n then as the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381 came\n to be regarded as an \u0153cumenical Council (\u00a7 50, 4), this\n creed, erroneously ascribed to that Council, had accorded\n to it the rank of an \u0153cumenical Symbol.\n\n II. =The Apostles\u2019 Creed.=--The Roman church and with it the\n whole =West=, standing upon the supposed Apostolic origin\n of their symbol, did not suffer it to be dislodged by the\n Nic\u00e6num nor to be assimilated by any importations from\n it. Nevertheless during the period when the Roman chair\n was dominated by the Byzantine court theology (\u00a7 52, 3)\n the so-called _Nic\u00e6no-Constantinopolitanum_ succeeded in\n displacing the old Western creed, aided by the opposition\n to the Arianism that was being driven forward by the\n Visigoths and Ostrogoths in Italy and Spain (\u00a7 76, 2, 7),\n which demanded a more decidedly anti-Arian formula.\n After this danger had been long overcome, the desire\n was expressed in the 9th century for a shorter creed\n that might serve as a baptismal formula and as the basis\n of catechetical teaching. They fell back, however, not\n upon the old Roman creed, but upon a more modern Gallic\n expansion of it, which forms what is called by us now\n the Apostles\u2019 Creed. Owing to the reverence shown to the\n Roman church this creed soon found its way throughout\n all the West, and arrogated to itself here the name\n of an \u0153cumenical Symbol, although it has never been\n acknowledged by the Greek church. The legend of its\n apostolic origin was carried out still further by the\n assertion that each of the twelve Apostles composed one\n article as his contribution to the formula (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae).\n Laurentius Valla and Erasmus were the first to dispute\n its apostolic origin.\n\n III. =The Athanasian Creed.=--The so-called Athanasian Symbol,\n which from its opening words is also known as _Symb._\n \u201c_Quicunque_,\u201d sprang up in the end of the 5th century\n out of the opposition of Western Catholicism to German\n Arianism, so that it is doubtful whether it had its\n origin in Gaul, Spain or North Africa. In short, sharply\n accentuated propositions it sets forth first of all the\n Nicene-Constant. doctrine of the Trinity in its fuller\n form as developed by Augustine (\u00a7 50, 7), then in the\n second part the dogmatic results of the Nestorian and\n Eutychian controversies (\u00a7 52, 3, 4), and in the severest\n terms makes eternal salvation dependent on the acceptance\n of all these beliefs. The earliest certain trace of its\n existence is found in C\u00e6sarius of Arles (A.D. 503-543) who\n quotes some sentences borrowed from it as of acknowledged\n authority. The idea that Athanasius was its author arose\n in the 8th century and was soon accepted throughout the\n West as an undoubted truth. It was first taken notice of\n by the Greek church in the 11th century, and on account\n of the _filioque_ (\u00a7 67, 1) was pronounced heretical.[176]\n\n \u00a7 59.3. =Bible Reading in Church and Preaching.=--The =Reading=\n of non-canonical books in church, which had previously been\n customary (\u00a7 36, 3), was now forbidden. The _Lectio continua_,\n _i.e._ the reading of entire biblical books was the common\n practice down to the 5th century. In the Latin church at each\n service there were usually two readings, one from the Gospels,\n the other from the Epistles or the Prophets. The _Apostolic\n Constitutions_ (\u00a7 43, 4) have three, the Prophets, Epistles,\n and Gospels; so too the Gallican and Spanish churches; while\n the Syrian had four, the additional one being from Acts. As\n the idea of the Christian Year was carried out, however, the\n _Lectio continua_ gave place to the _Lectio propria_, _i.e._\n a selection of passages which correspond to the character\n of the particular festival. In the West this selection was\n fixed by the _Lectionaries_ among which the so-called _Liber\n comitis_, which tradition assigned to Jerome, in various\n forms and modifications, found acceptance generally throughout\n the West. In the East where the _Lectio continua_ continued\n much more prevalent, lectionaries came into use first in the\n 8th century. The lesson was read by a reader from a reading desk;\n as a mark of distinction, however, the gospel was often read by\n the deacon. For the same purpose, too, lights were often kindled\n during this reading.--The =Sermon= was generally by the bishop,\n who might, however, transfer the duty to a presbyter or deacon.\n Monks were forbidden to preach in the church. They were not\n hindered from doing so in the streets and markets, from roofs,\n pillars and trees. The bishop preached from his episcopal throne,\n but often, in order to be better heard, stood at the railing of\n the choir (_Cancelli_). Augustine and Chrysostom often preached\n from the reading desk. In the East preaching came very much to\n the front, lasted often for an hour, and aimed at theatrical\n effects. Very distracting was the practice, specially common\n in Greece of giving loud applause with waving of handkerchiefs\n and clapping of hands (\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _Acclamatio_). In the West the\n sermon consisted generally of short simple addresses (_Sermones_).\n Extempore discourses (\u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) were greatly\n appreciated, more so than those repeated from memory; reading\n was quite an exceptional occurrence. Even the emperors after\n Constantine\u2019s example gave sometimes sermonic lectures in\n extra-ecclesiastical assemblies. Among the Syrians sermons in\n verse and strophically arranged, with equal number of syllables\n in the lines but unrhymed, were very popular.\n\n \u00a7 59.4. =Hymnology.=[177]--Ephra\u00ebm [Ephraim] the Syrian\n (\u2020 A.D. 378) introduced melodious orthodox hymns in place\n of the heterodox hymns of the Syrian Gnostics Bardesanes and\n Harmonius (\u00a7 27, 5). On the later Syrian hymn writers, see\n \u00a7 48, 7. The introduction of their hymns into the public service\n caused no trouble. For the Greeks orthodox hymns were composed\n by Gregory Nazianzen and Synesius of Ptolemais. The want of\n popularity and the ban of the Laodicean Council hindered their\n introduction into the services of the church; but this ban was\n removed as early as the 5th century. Under the name of Troparies,\n from \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2=art of music, shorter, and soon also longer, poems\n of their own composition were introduced alongside of the church\n service of Psalms (\u00a7 70, 2). But unquestionably the palm for\n church hymn composition belongs to the Latin church. With Hilary\n of Poitiers (\u2020 A.D. 368) begins a series of poets (Ambrose,\n Damasus, Augustine, Sedulius, Eunodius, Prudentius, Fortunatus,\n Gregory the Great) who bequeathed to their church a precious\n legacy of spiritual songs of great beauty, spirituality, depth,\n power, grandeur and simplicity.\n\n \u00a7 59.5. =Psalmody and Hymn Music.=[178]--From the time when\n clerical _cantores_ (\u00a7 34, 3) were appointed the symphonic\n singing of psalms by the congregation seems to have been on\n the wane. The Council of Laodicea forbade it altogether, without,\n however, being able quite to accomplish that. Antiphonal or\n responsive singing was much enjoyed. Hypophonic singing of the\n congregation in the responses with which the people answered the\n clerical intonings, readings and prayers, and in the beating of\n time with which they answered the clerical singing of psalms, was\n long persisted in in spite of clerical exclusiveness. The singing\n of prayers, readings and consecrations was first introduced\n in the 6th century. At first church music was simple, artless,\n recitative. But the rivalry of heretics forced the orthodox\n church to pay greater attention to the requirements of art.\n Chrysostom had to declaim against the secularisation of Church\n music. More lasting was the opposition of the church to the\n introduction of instrumental accompaniments. Even part singing\n was at this time excluded from the church. In the West psalmody\n took a high flight with a true ecclesiastical character. Even in\n A.D. 330, bishop Sylvester erected a school at Rome for training\n singers for the churches. Ambrose of Milan was the author of a\n new kind of church music full of melodious flow, with rhythmical\n accent and rich modulation, nobly popular and grandly simple\n (_Cantus Ambrosianus_). Augustine speaks with enthusiasm of the\n powerful impression made on him by this lively style of singing,\n but expresses also the fear that the senses might be spellbound\n by the pleasant sound of the tune, and thus the effect of\n the words on the mind be weakened. And in fact the Ambrosian\n chant was in danger during the 6th century through increasing\n secularisation of losing its ecclesiastical character. Then\n appeared Gregory the Great as reformer and founder of a new\n style of music (_Cantus Romanus, ferinus, choralis_) for which\n at the same time, in order that he might fix it in a tune book\n (_Antiphonarium_), he invented a special notation, the so-called\n _Neum\u00e6_, either from \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as characterizing the music, or from\n \u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 as characterizing the musical notes, a wonderful mixture\n of points, strokes and hooks. The Gregorian music is in unison,\n slow, measured and uniform without rhythm and beat, so that\n it approaches again the old recitative mode of psalm singing,\n while still at the same time its elaboration of the art with\n much richer modulation marks an important step in advance. The\n Ambrosian briskness, freshness and popular style were indeed\n lost, but all the more certainly the earnestness, dignity and\n solemnity of Church music were preserved. But it was a very great\n defect that the Gregorian music was assigned exclusively to well\n equipped choirs of clerical singers, hence _Cantus choralis_, for\n the training of which Gregory founded a school of music in Rome.\n The congregation was thus deprived of that lively participation\n in the public service which up to that time it had enjoyed.\n\n \u00a7 59.6. =The Liturgy.=--The numerous liturgies that had sprung\n up since the 4th century were reared on the basis of one common\n type which we find in the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions\n (\u00a7 43, 4). The most important orthodox liturgies are: the\n Jerusalem liturgy which is ascribed to the Apostle James, the\n Alexandrian which claims as its author Mark, disciple of the\n Apostles (\u00a7 16, 4), the Byzantine which professes to have been\n composed by Basil and abbreviated by Chrysostom, which ultimately\n dislodged all others from the orthodox church of the East.\n Among Western liturgies the following are distinguished for\n antiquity, reputation and significance: the Gallican Masses\n of the 5th century, the Milan liturgy, professedly by Barnabas,\n probably by Ambrose, and the Roman or that of St. Peter, to the\n successive revisions of which are attached the names of the great\n popes Leo the Great, \u2020 A.D. 461, Gelasius I., \u2020 A.D. 496, and\n Gregory the Great, \u2020 A.D. 604. It gradually obtained universal\n ascendancy in the West. Its components are: The _sacramentarium_,\n prayers for the service of the Mass, the _antiphonarium_, the\n _lectionarium_, and the _Ordo Romanus_, guide to the dispensation\n of the Mass. The uniting of these several writings to the _Missale\n Romanum_ belongs to a later period.--=The Greek Liturgy= in the\n combining of the vesper, matins and principal service of worship\n represents a threefold religious drama in which the whole course\n of the sacred history from the creation of the world to the\n ascension of our Lord is brought to view. In the lighting and\n extinguishing of candles, in opening and closing of doors,\n in the figured cloth covering the altar space, (\u00a7 60, 1), in\n burning of incense and presentations, in the successive putting\n on of various liturgical vestments, in the processions and\n genuflections of the inferior clergy, in the handling of the\n sacramental elements, etc., the chief points of the gospel\n history are symbolically set forth. The word accompanying the\n ceremonies (intonations, responses, prayers, readings, singing)\n has a subordinate significance and forms only a running commentary\n on the drama.--=The Latin Church= changed the dramatic character\n of the liturgy into a dogmatic one. It is no longer the objective\n history of salvation which is here represented, but the subjective\n appropriation of salvation. The sinner in need of redemption\n comes to the altar of the Lord, seeks and finds quickening and\n instruction, forgiveness and grace. The real pillar of the whole\n service is therefore the word, and to the symbol is assigned only\n the subordinate part of accompanying the word with a pictorial\n representation. The components of the liturgy are partly such\n as invariably are repeated in every Mass, partly such as change\n with the calendar and the requirements of particular festivals.\n Among the former the canon of the Mass forms the real centre of\n the whole Mass. It embraces the eucharistic forms of consecration\n with the prayer offered up in connection with the offering of it\n up.--Among the liturgical writings are specially to be named the\n =Diptychs= (\u03b4\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9, to fold twice), writing tablets which\n were covered on the inside with wax. They were the official lists\n of persons of the ancient church, and were of importance for the\n liturgy inasmuch as the names written upon them were the subject\n of special liturgical intercession. We have to distinguish,\n \u03b4\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, in which are written the names of the foreign\n bishops with whom church fellowship is maintained, and \u03b4\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\n \u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd or lists of their own church members as the offerers, and\n \u03b4\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd.[179]\n\n \u00a7 59.7. =Liturgical Vestments.=--A special clerical costume which\n made the clergy recognisable even in civil life arose from their\n scorning to submit to the whims of fashion. The transition from\n this to a compulsory liturgical style of dress was probably\n owing to the fact that the clergy in discharging their official\n functions wore not their every-day attire, but a better suit\n reserved for the purpose. If in this way the idea of sacred\n vestments was arrived at it was an easy step to associate\n them with the official costume of the Old Testament priesthood,\n attributing to them, as to the dress of the Jewish priests, a\n symbolico-mystical significance, to be diversified according to\n their patterns as well as according to the needs of the worship\n and their hierarchical rank. In the West the proper dress for\n Mass was and continued the so-called _Alba_, among the Greeks\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a white linen shirt reaching down\n to the feet after the pattern of the old Roman _Tunica_ and\n corresponding to the long coat of the Old Testament priest,\n with a girdle (_Cingulum_). The shorter _Casula_ or _Pineta_,\n among the Greeks \u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, over the Alba took the place of the\n _Toga_. It was originally without sleeves, simply a coloured\n garment of costly material furnished with an opening for the\n head, but in later times made more convenient by being slit half\n way down on both sides. The _Orarium_, \u1f40\u03c1\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, afterwards called\n _Stola_, is a long wide strip of costly cloth which the deacon\n threw over his left shoulder and on his right thigh, but the\n priest and the bishop wore it over both shoulders and at the\n sacrifice of the Mass in the form of the cross over the breast.\n Over these priestly vestments the bishop wore as representing\n the high priest\u2019s ephod the so-called _Dalmatica_, among the\n Greeks \u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, a costly sleeved robe; and the archbishop also\n the _Pallium_, \u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. This last was originally a complete\n robe, but in order not to conceal the episcopal and priestly\n ornaments it was reduced to a small white woollen cape with two\n strips hanging down on the breast and the back. To episcopal\n ornaments of the Greeks besides belonged the \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a\n square-shaped piece of cloth, hanging down from the \u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 on\n the left side, ornamented with a picture of Christ sewed on\n stiff pasteboard; and to correspond to the high priest\u2019s Urim\n and Thummim, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a painting in enamel of a saint,\n hung to the breast by a golden chain. Among the Latins the place\n of the latter is taken by the golden cross for the breast or\n _Pectorale_. As covering of the head the priest had the Barretta\n (_birretum_), the bishop the mitre, _mitra_ (\u00a7 84, 1). The ring\n and staff (marriage ring and shepherd\u2019s staff) were in very early\n times made the insignia of the episcopal office. The settling of\n the various liturgical colours for the successive festivals of\n the Christian year was first made during the 12th century.[180]\n\n \u00a7 59.8. =Symbolical Acts in Worship.=--The fraternal kiss\n was a general custom throughout the whole period. On entering,\n the church door or threshold was kissed; during the liturgical\n service the priest kissed the altar, the reader the Gospel. Even\n relics and images were kissed. When one confessed sin he beat\n upon his breast. The sign of the cross was made during every\n ecclesiastical action and even in private life was frequently\n used. The custom of washing the hands on entering God\u2019s house\n and lighting candles in it, was very ancient. No quite certain\n trace of sprinkling with holy water is found before the 9th\n century. The burning of incense (_thurificari_) is first found\n late in the 4th century. In earlier times it was supposed to draw\n on and feed the demons; afterwards it was regarded as the surest\n means of driving them away. The consecration of churches and the\n annual commemoration thereof are referred to even by Eusebius\n (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03af). Even so early as the times of Ambrose the\n possession of relics was regarded as an indispensable condition\n to such services.\n\n \u00a7 59.9. =Processions= are of early date and had their\n prototypes in the heathen worship in the solemn marches\n at the high festivals of Dionysos, Athene, etc., etc. First at\n burials and weddings, they were practised since the 4th century\n at the reception of bishops or relics, at thanksgivings for\n victories, especially at seasons of public distress and calamity\n (_Rogationes_, _Supplicationes_). Bishop Mamertus of Vienna about\n A.D. 450 and Gregory the Great developed them into regularly\n recurring institutions whose celebration was rendered more solemn\n by carrying the gospels in front, costly crosses and banners,\n blazing torches and wax candles, relics, images of Mary and the\n saints, by psalm and hymn singing. The prayers arranged for the\n purpose with invocation of saints, and angels and the popular\n refrain, _Ora pro nobis!_ were called _Litanies_.\n\n\n \u00a7 60. PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP, BUILDINGS\n AND WORKS OF ART.[181]\n\n Church architecture made rapid advance as a science in the times\nof Constantine the Great. The earliest architectural style thus\ndeveloped is found in the Christian _Basilicas_. Whether this was\na purely original kind of building called forth by the requirements\nof congregational worship, or whether and how far it was based upon\npreviously existing styles, is still a subject of discussion. In later,\nand especially oriental, church buildings the flat roof of the basilica\nwas often changed into a cupola. Of the plastic arts painting was the\nnext to be represented.\n\n \u00a7 60.1. =The Basilica.=--The original form of the Christian\n basilica was that of an oblong four-sided building running from\n west to east. It was divided lengthwise by rows of pillars, into\n three parts or aisles, in such a way as to leave the middle aisle\n at least double the breadth of each of the other two. The middle\n aisle led up to a semicircular recess (\u03ba\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7, \u1f00\u03c8\u03af\u03c2, _Concha_,\n _Absida_), curved out of the eastern side wall, which was\n separated from the middle aisle proper by a railing (\u03ba\u03b9\u03b3\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2,\n _Cancelli_) and a curtain (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, _Velum_), and, because\n raised a few steps, was called \u03b2\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 (from \u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9). From the 5th\n century the pillars running down the length of the house were\n not carried on to the eastern gable, and thus a cross passage\n or transept was formed, which was raised to the level of the\n Bema and added to it. This transept now in connection with the\n middle aisle and the recess imprints upon the ground plan of the\n church the significant form of the cross. At the entrance at the\n western end there was a porch which occupied the whole breadth\n of the house. Thus then the whole fell into three divisions.\n The =Bema= was reserved for the clergy. The elevated seat of\n the bishop (\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _Cathedra_) stood in the middle of the\n round wall forming the recess, lower seats for the presbyters\n on both sides (\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), the altar in the centre or in front\n of the recess. As a place reserved for the altar and the clergy\n the \u03b2\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 had also the names \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f04\u03b4\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, _Sacrarium_,\n _Sanctuarium_, the name \u201cHandbook of Painting: Italian Schools.\n Based on K\u00fcgler\u2019s Handbook.\u201d by Eastlake; new ed. by Layard,\n 2 vols., Lond., 1886.] of Choir being first given it in the Middle\n Ages. Under the Apse or Bema there was usually a subterranean\n chamber, \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae, _Memoria_, _Confessio_, containing the bones of\n martyrs. The altar space in later times in the Eastern churches\n instead of being marked off by railings or curtains was separated\n by a wooden partition which because adorned with sacred pictures\n painted often on a golden ground and inlaid with most precious\n stones, was called the picture screen (\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). It had\n usually three doors of which the middle one, the largest of the\n three, the so-called \u201cRoyal\u201d door, was reserved for the bishop\n and for the emperor when he communicated. The =Nave= or main\n part of the building, consisting of three, less frequently of\n five, aisles (\u03bd\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bd\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c2, _Navis_, so called partly from its\n oblong form, partly and chiefly on account of the symbolical\n significance of the ship as a figure of the means of salvation,\n Gen. vii. 23), was the place where the baptized laity met, and\n were arranged in the different aisles according to sex, age\n and rank. In the Eastern churches galleries (\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b1) were often\n introduced along the sides for the women. The =Porch= (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2,\n _Vestibulum_) which from its great width was also called \u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03b7\u03be\n or _Ferula_, properly the hollow stalk of an umbelliferous plant,\n was the place occupied by the catechumens and penitents. In front\n of it, in earlier times unroofed, afterwards covered, was the\n enclosure (\u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03ae, _Atrium_, _Area_) where a basin of\n water stood for washing the hands. Here too the penitents during\n the first stage of their discipline, as well as the _energumeni_,\n had to stand. That the Atrium was also called _Paradisus_, as\n Athanasius tells us, is best explained by supposing that here\n for the warning of penitents there was a picture of Adam and\n Eve being driven out of Paradise. The porch and the side aisles\n just to the height of the pillars, were shut in with tesselated\n rafters and covered with a one-sided slanting roof. But middle\n aisle and transept were heightened by side walls resting on the\n pillars and rising high above the side roofs and covered with a\n two-sided slanting roof. In order that the pillars might be able\n to bear this burden, they were bound one to another by an arched\n binding. The walls of the middle aisle and transepts rising above\n the side roofs were supplied with windows, which were usually\n wanting in the lower walls.--Utility was the main consideration\n in the development of the plan of the basilicas, but nevertheless\n at the same time the idea of symbolical significance was also\n in many ways very fully carried out, such as the form of the\n cross in the ground plan, and the threefold division into middle\n and side aisles. In the bow-shaped binding of the pillars the\n idea of pressing forward (Phil. iii. 13, 14) was represented,\n for there the eye was carried on from one pillar to the other\n and led uninterruptedly forward to the recess at the east end,\n where stood the altar, where the Sun of righteousness had risen\n (Mal. iv. 2). The semicircle of the recess to which the eye was\n carried forward reminded of the horizon from which the sun rose\n in his beauty; and the bold rising of the walls of the middle\n aisle, which rested on the arched pillars, pointed the eye\n upwards and gave the liturgical _sursum corda_ which the bishop\n called out to the congregation a corresponding expression in\n architectural form. This significance was further intensified\n by the light falling down from above into the sacred place.\n\n \u00a7 60.2. =Secular Basilicas.=--All spaces adorned with pillared\n courts were called among the ancient Romans basilicas. In\n the private houses of distinguished Romans the name _Basilica\n domestica_ was given to the so-called O\u00ebcus, _i.e._ the chamber\n reserved for solemn occasions with the peristyle in front,\n the inner open court surrounded by covered pillared halls;\n while public markets and courts of justice were called _Basilic\u00e6\n forenses_. The latter were oblong in shape; at the end opposite\n the entrance the dividing wall was broken through and in the\n opening a semicircular recess was carved out with an elevated\n platform, and in this were the tribunal of the pr\u00e6tor and seats\n for the assessors and the jury. In the covered pillared courts\n along the two sides were the wares exposed for sale and in the\n usually uncovered large middle space the buyers and lookers-on\n moved about. Outside of the enclosing wall before the entrance\n was often a pillared porch standing by itself for a lobby.--From\n having the same name and many correspondences in construction\n the later Christian basilica was supposed to have been copied\n from the forensic basilica. Zestermann was the first to contest\n this theory and in this found hearty support especially on\n the Catholic side. According to him the Christian basilica\n had nothing in common with the forensic, but was called forth\n quite independently of any earlier style of building by the\n requirements of Christian worship. Now certainly on the one\n side the similarity had been quite unduly over-estimated.\n For almost everything that gave its symbolically significant\n character to the ecclesiastical basilica,--the transept and\n the form of the cross brought out by it, the bow-shaped binding\n of the pillars, the walls of the middle aisle resting on the\n pillars rising sheer into the heights, as well as the entirely\n new arrangement of the whole house, are the essential and\n independent product of the Christian spirit. But on the other\n hand, differences have been greatly exaggerated and features\n which the ecclesiastical basilica had in common with the forensic,\n which were demonstrably copied from the latter, have been ignored.\n On both sides, too, the importance for our question of the\n _basilic\u00e6 domestic\u00e6_ used for worship before regular churches\n were built, has been overlooked. Here the peristyle with its\n pillared courts with the o\u00ebcus attached supplied the divisions\n needed for the different classes attending divine service (clergy,\n congregation, penitents, catechumens). What was more natural\n than that this form of building, brought indeed into more perfect\n accord with the Christian idea and congregational requirements,\n should be adopted in church building and with it also the name\n with a new application to Christ the heavenly King? But one\n and indeed a very essential feature in the later basilica style\n is wanting generally in the o\u00ebcus of private houses, viz. the\n Apse. One would naturally suppose that it was borrowed from the\n forensic basilica in consideration of its purpose there, scruples\n against such procedure being lessened as the heathen state passed\n over to Christianity. Thus too it is easily explained how the\n earliest basilicas, like that of Tyre consecrated in A.D. 313,\n of which Eusebius\u2019 description gives us full information, have\n as yet no Apse.\n\n \u00a7 60.3. =The Cupola Style.=--We meet with the first example of\n the cupola style among Christian buildings in the form of Roman\n mausoleums in chapels or churches raised over martyrs\u2019 graves.\n This style, however, was in many ways unsuitable for regular\n parish churches. The necessarily limited inner space embraced\n within the circular or polygonal walls would not admit of\n the significant shape of the nave being preserved; it could\n not be proportionally partitioned among clergy, congregation,\n catechumens and penitents. In an ideal point of view only\n the centre of the whole space was suitable for the bema with\n the altar, bishop\u2019s throne, etc. In that case, however, the\n half of the congregation present would have to stand behind\n the officiating clergy and so this arrangement was not to be\n thought of. In the later ecclesiastical buildings, therefore,\n of the cupola style the ground plan of the basilica was adopted,\n with atrium and narthex at the west end and bema and apse at\n the east end. The old basilica style, though capable of so\n much artistic adornment, passed now indeed more and more into\n desuetude before the overpowering impression made upon one\n entering the building by the cupola (\u03b8\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, _Cuppula_) like\n a cloud of heaven overspanning at a giddy height the middle\n space, pierced by many windows and resting on four pillars\n bound by arches one to another. Besides this main and complete\n cupola there were often a number of semi- and secondary cupolas,\n which gave to the whole building from without the appearance\n of a rich well ordered organism. The greatest masterpiece\n in this style, which Byzantine love of art and beauty valued\n far more than the simple basilica, is the church of Sophia at\n Constantinople (\u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1=\u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2), at the completion of which in\n A.D. 587 Justinian I. cried out: \u039d\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd.\n\n \u00a7 60.4. =Accessory and Special Buildings.=--Alongside of the main\n building there generally were additional buildings for special\n purposes (\u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9), surrounded by an enclosing wall. Among these\n isolated extra buildings _Baptistries_ (\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1)\n held the first rank. They were built in rotunda form after the\n pattern of the Roman baths. The baptismal basin (\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ae\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1,\n _Piscina_) in the middle of the inner space was surrounded by\n a series of pillars. In front there was frequently a roomy porch\n used for the instruction of catechumens. When infant baptism\n became general, separate baptistries were no longer needed. Their\n place was taken by the baptismal font in the church itself on the\n north side of the main entrance. For the custody of church jewels,\n ornaments, robes, books, archives, etc. in the larger churches\n there were special buildings provided. The spirit of brotherhood,\n the _Philadelphia_, expressed itself in the \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1,\n \u1f40\u03c1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03b3\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03b2\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 (Foundling Hospitals),\n \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1. The burying ground (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n _Cimeterium_, _Dormitorium_, _Area_) was also usually within\n the wall enclosing the church property. The privilege of burial\n within the church was granted only to emperors and bishops. When\n clocks came into vogue towers were introduced, but these were at\n first simply attached to the churches, occasionally even standing\n quite apart.\n\n \u00a7 60.5. =Church furniture.=--The centre of the whole house of\n God was the _Altar_ (\u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03b1, \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _Ara_, _Altare_),\n since the 5th century commonly of stone, often overlaid with gold\n and silver. The altar stood out at the east end, the officiating\n priest behind it facing the congregation. The introduction of\n the _Miss\u00e6 solitari\u00e6_ (\u00a7 58, 3) made it necessary in the West to\n have a large number of altars. In the Greek church the rule was\n to have one altar. Moveable altars, for missionaries, crusaders,\n etc., were necessary since the consecration of the altar had\n been pronounced indispensable. The Latins used for this purpose\n a consecrated stone plate with a cover (_Palla_); the Greeks\n only a consecrated altar cloth (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). The altar cloth\n was regarded as essential, a _denudatio alteris_ as impious\n desecration; according to liturgical rule, however, the altar\n was bared on Friday and Saturday of Passion Week. From the\n altar cloth was distinguished the _Corporale_, \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, for\n covering the oblations. On the altar stood the _Ciborium_, a\n canopy supported by four feet, to which by a golden chain was\n attached a dove-shaped vessel (\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) with the consecrated\n sacramental elements for the communion of the sick. The\n _Thuribulum_ was for the burning of incense, cross for marches\n and processions (_Cruces stationales_) and banners (_Vexilla_).\n In the nave were seats for the congregation; in the narthex\n there were none. The pulpit or reading desk (_Pulpitum_) at\n first movable, afterwards permanently fixed to the railings\n in the middle of the bema in the basilica was called the _Ambo_\n from \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9, or _Lectorium_, our English Lectern. In many\n churches two ambos were erected, on the north or left side for\n the gospel, and on the south or right side for the epistle. In\n larger churches, however, the ambo was often brought forward into\n the nave. Our chancel had its origin late in the Middle Ages by\n a separate preaching Ambo being erected beside the lectern, and\n raised aloft in order that the preacher might be better seen and\n heard.--The introduction of church clocks (_Nol\u00e6_, _Campanul\u00e6_,\n because commonly made of Campanian brass which was regarded as\n the best) is sometimes ascribed to bishop Paulinus of Nola in\n Campania, who died in A.D. 431, sometimes to Pope Sabinianus,\n who died in A.D. 606. In the East they were first introduced\n in the 9th century. In early times the hours of service were\n announced by _Cursores_, \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, afterwards by trumpets or\n beating of gongs.\n\n \u00a7 60.6. =The Graphic and Plastic Arts= (\u00a7 38, 3; \u00a7 57, 4).--The\n Greek church forbade all nudity; only face, hands and feet\n could be left uncovered. This narrowness was overcome in the\n West. Brilliancy of colour, costliness of material and showy\n overloading of costume made up for artistic deficiencies.\n The \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 afforded stereotyped forms for the\n countenances of images of Christ, Mary and the Apostles. The\n _Nimbus_, originally a soft mist or transparent cloud, with which\n pagan poets and painters surrounded the persons or heads of the\n gods, in later times also those of the Roman emperors, made its\n appearance during the 5th century in Christian painting as the\n _halo_, in the form of rays, of a diadem or of a circle, first\n of all in figures of Christ. Images of the Saviour bound to the\n cross were first introduced about the end of the 6th century.\n The symbol was previously restricted to the representation of\n a lamb at the foot of the cross, a bust of Christ at the top or\n in the middle of the cross, or the full figure of Christ holding\n His cross before Him. _Anastasius Sinaita_ in the 7th century,\n to show his opposition to the monophysite doctrine that only the\n body had been crucified, painted a figure of the crucified which\n straightway came to be regarded in the Eastern church as the\n pattern figure, without the crown of thorns, with nimbus, the\n wound of the spear with blood streaming forth, the cross with an\n inscription on both sides--JC. XC.--and a sloping peg as support\n for the feet, and under the cross the skull of Adam. The Western\n crucifix figures, on the other hand, though likewise governed\n by a special type, show greater freedom in artistic development.\n Wall or fresco painting was most extensively carried on in\n the Catacombs during the 4th-6th centuries. Mosaic painting,\n _Musivum_, \u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1, with its imperishable beauty of colouring,\n was used to decorate the long flat walls of the basilicas,\n the vaulted ceilings of the cupolas and the curving sides of\n the apse (glass-mosaic on a gold ground). Liturgical books were\n adorned with miniature figures. Sublimity came more and more\n to characterize ecclesiastical art; it became more majestic,\n dignified and dispassionate, but also stiffer and less natural.\n Statues seemed to the ancient church heathenish, sensuous and\n realistic. The Greek church at last prohibited them entirely\n and would not suffer even a single crucifix, but only simple\n crosses with a sloping transverse beam at the foot. The West\n had more liberal views, yet even there Christian statues were\n only quite isolated phenomena. There was less scruple in regard\n to bas-reliefs and alto-reliefs (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u03af) especially on\n sarcophagi and ecclesiastical furniture.\n\n\n\n\n \u00a7 61. LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.[182]\n\n When whole crowds of worldly-minded men, who only sought worldly\nadvantages from professing Christ, were drawn into the church after\nthe State had become Christian, the Christian life lost much of the\nearnestness, power and purity, by which it had conquered the old\nworld of heathenism. More and more the church became assimilated\nand conformed to the world, church discipline grew more lax, and moral\ndecay made rapid progress. Passionate contentions, quarrels and schisms\namong bishops and clergy filled also public life with party strife,\nanimosity and bitterness. The immorality of the court poisoned by its\nexample the capital and the provinces. Savagery and licentiousness\ngrew rampant amid the devastating raids of the barbarians. Hypocrisy\nand bigotry speedily took the place of piety among those who strove\nafter something higher, while the masses consoled themselves with\nthe reflection that every man could not be a monk. But in spite of\nall Christianity still continued to act as a leaven. In public and\ncivil life, in the administration of justice and the habits of the\npeople, the Christian spirit, theoretically at least, and often also\npractically, was still everywhere present. The requirements of humanity\nand the rights of man were recognised; slavery was more and more\nrestricted; gladiatorial shows and immoral exhibitions were abolished;\nthe limits of proud exclusive nationality were broken through; polygamy\nwas never tolerated, and the sanctity of marriage was insisted upon,\nthe female sex obtained its long unacknowledged rights; benevolent\ninstitutions (\u00a7 60, 4) flourished; and the inveterate vices of ancient\npaganism could at least be no longer regarded as the sound, legitimate\nand natural conditions and expressions of civil and social life. Even\nthe pagan, who, adopting the profession of Christianity, remained\npagan at heart, was obliged at least to submit himself to the forms\nand requirements of the church, to its discipline and morals. The shady\nside of this period is glaring enough, but a bright side and noble\npersonages of deep piety, moral earnestness, resolute denial of self\nand the world, are certainly not wanting.\n\n \u00a7 61.1. =Church Discipline.=--The Penitential Discipline of\n the 3rd century (\u00a7 39, 2) dealt only with public offences which\n had become common scandal. But even those who were burdened in\n conscience with heavy but hidden sins and thereby felt themselves\n excluded from church fellowship, were advised to seek deliverance\n from this secret excommunication by public confession of sin\n before the church in the form of _exomologesis_ and to submit to\n whatever humiliation the church should lay upon them. In presence\n of this hard and unreasonable demand the need must have soon\n become apparent of a secret and private tribunal in place of\n this public one, which when once introduced would soon drive\n the earlier out of the field. The first step in this direction\n was taken in the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th century\n in the Eastern church by the appointment of a special penitential\n presbytery (\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2. \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), who under an oath of\n secresy heard the confession of such sinners and laid upon them\n the proper penances. But when in A.D. 391, a female penitent, a\n married lady of good family in Constantinople, having committed\n adultery in the church with a deacon during her time of penance,\n confessed this sin also to a priestly confessor and so brought\n about the excommunication of the guilty deacon, the Patriarch\n Nectarius was obliged on account of the popular feeling excited\n to again abolish the whole institution and to leave to the\n consciences of such sinners themselves the question of partaking\n in the sacraments. But it was evident that this could not\n exclude pastoral advice and guidance by the clergy. In the\n West, notwithstanding the confident assertions of Socrates,\n we never meet with a penitential priest expressly appointed\n to such duties. Jerome on Matt. xvi. 19 calls it pharisaic\n pride in a bishop or presbyter to arrogate the judicial function\n of forgiving sins, \u201c_cum apud Deum non sententia sacerdotum, sed\n reorum vita qu\u00e6ratur_.\u201d Augustine distinguishes three kinds of\n penance corresponding to the three classes in the congregation.\n\n 1. The penance of catechumens; all their previous sins are\n atoned for by baptism.\n\n 2. The penance of believers whose venial sins (_peccata\n venialia_) occasioned by the universal sinfulness of human\n nature obtain forgiveness in daily prayer.\n\n 3. The penance of those who on account of serious actual\n breaches of the decalogue (_peccata gravia s. mortalia_)\n are punished with ecclesiastical excommunication.\n\n In estimating the church discipline to be exacted of this last\n class of offenders he lays down the principle that the degree\n of its publicity is to be measured in accordance with the degree\n of publicity of the offence committed, and according to the\n magnitude of the scandal which it has occasioned. And when\n some Italian bishops demanded \u201c_in p\u0153nitentia, qu\u00e6 a fidelibus\n postulatur_\u201d the reading before the congregation of a written\n confession of their sin, Leo the Great forbade this extreme\n practice, as unevangelical as it was unreasonable, declaring\n that it was quite enough to confess the sin first to God and\n then in secret confession to the priest. But when Leo added the\n assertion: _divina bonitate ordinatum esse, ut indulgentia Dei\n nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequeat obtineri; et salvatorem\n ipsum, qui hane pr\u00e6positis ecclesi\u00e6 tradidit potestatem, ut\n et confidentibus actionem p\u0153nitenti\u00e6 durent, et eosdem salubri\n satisfactione purgatos ad communionem sacramentorum per januam\n reconciliationis admitterent, huic utique operi incessabiliter\n intervenire_,--we have here the first foundation laid of the\n present Roman Catholic doctrine of penance. But this _confessio\n secreta_ is still something very different from the later\n so-called Auricular Confession. Leo\u2019s ordinance treats only of\n the confession of grave offences, which, if openly committed or\n proclaimed, would have called forth punishment from the judicial\n tribunal; _quibus_, says Leo, _possint legum constitutione\n percelli_. But still more important is the distinction that even\n Leo does not confer upon the priest absolute power of forgiving\n sin as God\u2019s vicegerent, but only allows him to officiate as\n \u201c_peccator pro delictis p\u0153nitentium_.\u201d Besides Leo\u2019s view of\n the unconditional necessity of confession in order to obtain\n divine forgiveness of heinous sins by no means gained universal\n acceptance in the church. The opinion that it was enough to\n confess sins to God alone, and that confession to a priest,\n while helpful and wholesome, was not absolutely necessary, was\n universally prevalent in the East, where Chrysostom especially\n maintained it, and even in the West down to the time of Gratian,\n A.D. 1150, and Petrus [Peter] Lombardus [Lombard], \u2020 A.D. 1164,\n had numerous and important representatives among the teachers\n of the church (\u00a7 104, 4). An important step onwards on the path\n opened up by Leo was taken soon after him in the West when not\n merely actual sins but even sinful dispositions and desires,\n ambition, anger, pride, lust, etc., of which Joh. Cassianus\n enumerates eight as _vitia principalia_, as well as the sinful\n thoughts springing from them, were included in the province\n of secret confession. A system of confession as a regular\n and necessary preparation for observing the sacrament did\n not as yet exist.--The so-called Penitential books from the\n 6th century afforded a guide to determine the penances to\n be imposed upon the penitents in the form of fasts, prayers,\n almsgiving, etc., according to the degree of their guilt. The\n first Penitential book for the Greek church is ascribed to\n the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joh. the Faster or Jejunator,\n \u2020 A.D. 595, and is entitled: \u1f08\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.[183]--Continuation \u00a7 89, 6.\n\n \u00a7 61.2. =Christian Marriage.=--The ecclesiastical consecration\n of the marriage tie (\u00a7 39, 1) performed after, as well as before,\n civil marriage by mutual consent before two secular witnesses,\n was made more solemn by being separated from the ordinary\n worship and celebrated at a special week-day service (_missa\n pro sponsis_), and a rich ritual grew up which gradually\n developed itself into an independent liturgy. Into this many\n bridal customs hitherto despised as heathenish were introduced,\n the wedding ring, veiling the bride, the crowning both betrothed\n parties with wreaths, bridal sashes, bridal torches, bridesmaids\n or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9. The granting of the wedding ceremony was regarded\n as an honour which would be refused in the case of marriages not\n approved by the church. But neither the refusal nor the neglect\n of the ceremony on the part of those newly married interfered\n with the validity of the marriage. Charlemagne was the first\n in the West and Leo VI. (\u00a7 70, 2) was the first in the East,\n to make the church ceremony obligatory. Marriage between free\n and bond, which was regarded by the state as concubinage, was\n regarded by the church as perfectly valid. Blood relationship by\n consanguinity and affinity was regarded as hindrance to marriage;\n artificial relationship by adoption and spiritual relationship\n by baptismal and confirmational sponsorship (\u00a7 58, 1) were also\n hindrances. Marriage between brothers\u2019 or sisters\u2019 children was\n pronounced unbecoming by Augustine. Gregory the Great forbade\n it on physiological grounds, and permitted marriage only in the\n third or fourth degree of relationship. With gradually increasing\n strictness the prohibition was extended even to the seventh\n degree, but finally was fixed at the fourth by Innocent III.\n in A.D. 1215. In direct opposition to the Roman law of hereditary\n claims which established the degree of relationship according\n to the number of actual descendants, so that father and son were\n counted as related in the first degree to one another, brothers\n and sisters as in the second degree, uncle and niece or nephew\n as in the third, brothers\u2019 or sisters\u2019 children as in the fourth\n degree, the canon law on hindrances to marriage begins this\n reckoning after the withdrawal of the common parents, so that\n brother and sister are related in the first degree, uncle and\n niece in the second, etc. Several Councils of the 4th century\n wished to make the contracting of a second marriage occasion\n of church discipline; subsequently this demand was abandoned.\n Many canonists, however, contest even yet the legitimacy of a\n third marriage, and a fourth was almost universally admitted to\n be sinful and unallowable (\u00a7 67, 2). The contracting of mixed\n marriages, with heathens, Jews or heretics, demanded penance,\n and was strictly forbidden by the second Trullan Council in\n A.D. 692. Only adultery was usually admitted as affording ground\n for divorce; and also for the most part, unnatural vice, murder\n and apostasy. The Council at Mileve in Africa in A.D. 416 for\n the first time forbade divorced persons marrying again, even\n the innocent party, and Pope Innocent I. \u2020 A.D. 417, made this\n prohibition applicable universally.--Continuation \u00a7 89, 4.\n\n \u00a7 61.3. =Sickness, Death and Burial.=--The anointing the sick\n with oil (Mk. vi. 13; Jas. v. 14) as means of charismatic bodily\n healing is met with down to the 5th century. Innocent I. put\n it in a decretal of A.D. 416, for the first time as a sacrament\n for the dispensation of spiritual blessing to the sick. But many\n centuries passed before the anointing of the sick was generally\n observed as the sacrament of Extreme Unction (\u00a7 70, 2; 104, 5).\n On the other hand, the Areopagite (\u00a7 47, 11) reckoned the\n anointing of the dead a sacrament. The closing of the eyes\n implied that death was a sleep with the hope of an awakening\n in the resurrection. The fraternal kiss sealed the communion\n of Christians even beyond the grave. The putting garlands on\n the corpse as expressive of victory still met with opposition.\n Several Synods found it necessary to forbid the absurdity of\n squeezing the consecrated elements into the lips of the dead\n or laying them in the coffin. Passionate lamentation, rending\n of garments, wearing sackcloth and ashes, hired mourners, cypress\n branches, etc., were regarded as despairing, heathenish customs.\n So too festivals of the dead by night were condemned, while on\n the contrary funeral processions by day, with torches, lamps,\n palm and olive branches, were in high repute. Julian and the\n Vandals prohibited them. In the 4th century the celebration of\n the Agape and Supper at the grave was still frequent. In their\n place afterwards we find mourning feasts, but these, on account\n of their being abused, were disallowed by the church.\n\n \u00a7 61.4. =Purgatory and Masses for Souls.=--The connection of the\n custom already referred to by Tertullian of not only praying in\n family worship for members of the family that had fallen asleep,\n but also by oblations of sacramental elements on the memorial\n days of the dead (_Oblationes pro defunctis_) of giving to the\n intercessions at the Supper in public worship a special direction\n to them, with the doctrine of =Purgatory= (_Ignis purgatorius_)\n which had developed itself in the West since the 5th century,\n gave rise to the institution of masses for souls (\u00a7 58, 3). The\n idea of a place of punishment between death and the resurrection,\n in which the venial sins (_peccata venialia_) of believers must\n be atoned for, was quite unknown to the whole ancient church down\n to the age of Augustine and to the Greek church till even after\n his day (\u00a7 67, 6). Mention is made indeed even by Origen of a\n future \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd; but he means by it a mere\n spiritual burning, from which even a Paul and a Peter were not\n exempted. In the West it was first Augustine who deduced from\n Matt. xii. 32, that even in the hereafter forgiveness of sins\n is possible, holding in accordance with 1 Cor. iii. 13-15 that\n it is not incredible, but yet always questionable, that many\n believers who took over with them into the hereafter a sinful\n connection with their earthly past life, might there he purified\n by an \u201c_ignis purgatorius_\u201d of longer or shorter duration\n as the continuation and completion of the earthly \u201c_ignis\n tribulationis_,\u201d fiery trial, from the earthly dross still\n adhering to them, and so might be saved. With greater confidence\n _C\u00e6sarius of Arles_ teaches that believers who during their\n earthly life had neglected to atone for their minor offences\n by almsgiving and other good works, must be purified by a\n lingering fire in the next world, in order to win admission\n into eternal blessedness. Finally, Gregory the Great raised\n this idea into an established dogma of the Western church, while\n he, at the same time, taught that by the intercession of the\n living for the dead, and especially by the sacrifices of the\n mass offered for them their purgatorial pains would be moderated\n and curtailed. He too referred to Matt. xii. and 1 Cor. iii.\n The reference to 2 Maccabees xii. 41-46 belongs to a later\n period.--Continuation, \u00a7 106, 2, 3.\n\n\n \u00a7 62. HERETICAL REFORMERS.\n\n During the 4th century a spirit of opposition to the dominant\necclesiastical system was awakened, but as it manifested itself in\nisolated forms, it had no abiding result and was soon stamped out.\nThis spirit showed itself in various attempts which passed beyond what\nevangelical principles could vindicate. It directed its attacks partly\nagainst the secularization of the church, branching out often into\nwild fanaticism and rigorism, and partly against superstition and\nexternalism. Disgusted with the interminable theological controversies\nand heresy huntings of that age, many came to regard the distinction\nbetween orthodoxy and heresy as a matter of indifference so far\nas religion is concerned, and to look for the core and essence of\nChristianity not so much in doctrine as in morals.\n\n \u00a7 62.1. =Audians and Apostolics.=--As fanatical opponents of the\n secularizing of the church, besides the Montanists (\u00a7 40, 1) and\n the Novatians (\u00a7 41, 3) still surviving as isolated communities\n down to the 5th century, we meet during the 4th century with the\n Donatists (\u00a7 63, 1), the Audians and the Apostolics. The sect\n of the =Audians= was founded about A.D. 340 by a layman, a monk,\n Audius or Udo from Mesopotamia. Having been challenged for his\n crude anthropomorphic views, in support of which he referred to\n Gen. i. 26 and other passages, he allowed himself to be chosen\n and ordained bishop over his adherents. Placed thus in a directly\n hostile relation to the Catholic church, they accused the church\n of most arrant worldliness and degeneracy, called for a return\n to apostolic poverty and avoided all communion with its members.\n They also rejected the Nicene canon on the observance of Easter\n and adopted the quartodeciman practice (\u00a7 56, 3). On the motion\n of several Catholic bishops the emperor banished the founder\n of the sect to Scythia, where he laboured earnestly for the\n conversion of the Goths, founded also some bishoprics and\n monasteries with strict rules, and died in A.D. 372. The\n persecution of the Christians under Athanaric, in A.D. 370\n (\u00a7 76, 1), pressed sorely upon the Audians. Still remnants of\n them continued to exist down to the end of the 5th century.--The\n so-called =Apostolics= of Asia Minor in the 4th century went\n even further than the Audians. Of their origin nothing certain\n is known. They declared that the holding of private property and\n marriage are sinful, and unconditionally refused readmission to\n all excommunicated persons.\n\n \u00a7 62.2. =Protests against Superstition and External\n Observances.=--About the end of the 4th century lively protests\n were made against the superstitions and shallow externalism of\n the church. They were directed first of all to the worship of\n Mary, especially the now wide-spread belief in her _perpetua\n virginitas_ as mother of Jesus (\u00a7 57, 2). The first protesters\n against this doctrine that we meet with are the so-called\n =Antidicomarianites= in Arabia, whom Epiphanius sought to turn\n from their heresy by a doctrinal epistle incorporated in his\n history of heresies. In the West too there sprang up several\n opponents of this dogma of the church. One of the most prominent\n of these was a layman =Helvidius= in Rome in A.D. 380, a scholar\n of Auxentius, the Arian bishop of Milan. Then about A.D. 388 the\n Roman monk =Jovinian= opposed on substantial doctrinal grounds\n the prevailing notions about the merit of works and external\n observances, especially monasticism, asceticism, celibacy\n and fasting. And finally, =Bonosus=, bishop of Sardica, about\n A.D. 390, wrought in the same direction, though at a later period\n he seems to have given his adhesion to the Ebionite error that\n Jesus had been an ordinary man whom God adopted as His Son on\n account of His merit (_Filius Dei adoptivus_). At least his\n younger contemporary Marius Mercator describes him as an advocate\n of these views alongside of Paul of Samosata and Photinus. We\n also find many allusions during the 7th century to a sect of\n Bonosians teaching similar doctrines in Spain and Gaul, who are\n frequently associated with the Photinians. Even before Jovinian,\n =A\u00ebrius=, a presbyter of Sebaste in Armenia, about A.D. 360,\n entered his protest against the doctrine of the merit of external\n observances. He objected to prayer and oblations for the dead,\n would have no compulsory fasting, and no distinction of rank\n between bishops and presbyters. In this way he was brought into\n collision with his bishop Eustathius (\u00a7 44, 3). Persecuted on all\n sides, his adherents betook themselves to the caves and forests.\n The two monks of Milan, Sarmatio and Barbatianus, about A.D. 396,\n were perhaps scholars of Jovinian, were at least of the same\n mind with him. Finally, =Vigilantius=, presbyter at Barcelona\n about A.D. 400, with passionate violence opposed the veneration\n of relics, the invocation of saints, the prevailing love of\n miracles, the vigil services, the celibacy of the clergy and the\n merit of outward observances.--The counterblast of the church was\n hot and violent. Epiphanius wrote against the Audians and A\u00ebrians;\n Ambrose against Bonosus and the followers of Jovinian; Jerome\n with unparalleled bitterness and passion against Helvidius,\n Jovinian and Vigilantius; Augustine with greater moderation\n discussed the views of Jovinian which in their starting point\n were related to his own soteriological views.[184]\n\n \u00a7 62.3. =Protests against the Over-Estimation of Doctrine.=--Even\n in the times of Athanasius a certain Rhetorius made his appearance\n with the assertion that all heretics had a right to their opinion,\n and Philastrius [Philaster] speaks of a sect of =Rhetorians= in\n Egypt who, perhaps with a reference to Phil. i. 18, set aside\n altogether the idea of heresy and placed the essence of orthodoxy\n in fidelity to convictions. The =Gnosimachians= were related to\n them in the depreciation of dogma, but went beyond them by wholly\n withdrawing themselves from the domain of dogmatics and occupying\n themselves exclusively with morals. They are put in the list of\n heretics by Joh. Damascenus. This sect had sprung up during the\n monophysite and monothelite controversies, and maintained that\n since God requires of a Christian nothing more than a righteous\n life (\u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2), all striving after theoretical knowledge\n is useless and fruitless.\n\n\n \u00a7 63. SCHISMS.\n\n The Novatian and the Alexandrian Meletian Schisms (\u00a7 41, 3, 4)\ncontinued to rage down into our period. Then in consequence of the\nArian controversy there arose among the orthodox three new schisms\n(\u00a7 50, 8). Among them was a Roman schism, followed later by several\nothers that grew out of double elections (\u00a7 46, 4, 6, 8, 11). The\nmost threatening of all the schisms of this period was the Donatist in\nNorth Africa. On the Johannite schism in Constantinople, see \u00a7 51, 3.\nOwing to various diversities in the development of doctrine (\u00a7 50, 7),\nconstitution (\u00a7 46), worship (\u00a7 56 ff.), and discipline (\u00a7 61, 1),\nmaterial was accumulating for the grand explosion that was to burst\nup the connection of East and West (\u00a7 67). The imperial union attempts\nduring the Monophysite controversy caused a thirty-five years\u2019 schism\nbetween the two halves of the Christian world (\u00a7 52, 5), and want of\ncharacter in the Roman bishop Vigilius split off the West for half a\ncentury (\u00a7 52, 6). The split between the East and West over the union\nwith the Monothelite party (\u00a7 52, 8) was soon indeed overcome. But\nsoon thereafter the second Trullan Council at Constantinople, A.D. 692,\nwhich, as the continuation of the 5th and 6th \u0153cumenical Councils\n(\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7, _Concilium quinisextum_), occupied itself exclusively\nwith questions of constitution, worship, and discipline, which had\nnot there been discussed, gave occasion to the later incurable and\ndisastrous schism.\n\n \u00a7 63.1. =The Donatist Schism, A.D. 311-415.=--In North Africa,\n where echoes of the Montanist enthusiasm were still heard, many\n voluntarily and needlessly gave themselves up to martyrdom during\n the Diocletian persecution. The sensible bishop of Carthage\n Mensurius and his archdeacon C\u00e6cilian [C\u00e6cilius] opposed this\n fanaticism. Both had given up heretical books instead of the\n sacred books demanded of them. This was sufficient to make the\n opposite party denounce them as _traditores_. Mensurius died\n in A.D. 311, and his followers chose C\u00e6cilian [C\u00e6cilius] as\n his successor, and had him hastily ordained by bishop Felix\n of Aptunga, being sorely pressed by the machinations of the\n other party. The opposition, with a bigoted rich widow Lucilla\n at its head, denounced Felix as a traditor, and so treated his\n ordination as invalid. It put up a rival bishop in the person of\n the reader Majorinus, who soon got, in A.D. 313, a more powerful\n successor in Donatus, called by his own followers the Great. The\n schism spread from Carthage over all North Africa. The peasants,\n sorely oppressed by exorbitant taxes and heavy villeinage,\n took the side of the Donatists (_Pars Donati_). Constantine\n the Great at the very first declared himself against them. When\n they complained of this, the emperor convened for the purpose of\n special investigation a clerical commission at Rome in A.D. 313,\n under the presidency of the Roman bishop Melchiades, and then a\n great Western Synod at Arles in A.D. 314. Both decided against\n the Donatists. They appealed to the immediate decision of the\n emperor, who also heard the two parties at Milan, but decided\n in accordance with previous judgments in A.D. 316. Now followed\n severe measures, taking churches from them and banishing\n their bishops which powerfully excited and increased their\n fanaticism. Constantine resorted therefore to milder and\n more tolerant procedure, but in their fanatical zeal they\n repudiated all compromises. Under Constans the matter became\n still more formidable. Ascetics mad with enthusiasm, drawn from\n the very dregs of the people, who called themselves _Milites\n Christi_, _Agonistici_, swarmed as beggars through the country,\n _Circumcelliones_, roused the oppressed peasants to revolt,\n preached freedom and fraternity, forced masters to do the work\n of slaves, robbed, murdered, and burned. Political revolution\n was carried on under the cover of a religious movement. An\n imperial army put down the revolt, and an attempt was made\n in A.D. 348 to pacify the needy Donatists by imperial gold.\n But Donatus flung back the money with indignation, and the\n rebellion was renewed. A severe sentence was now passed upon\n the heads of the party, and all Donatist churches were closed\n or taken from them. Julian restored the churches and recalled\n the exiled bishops. He allowed the Donatists with impunity to\n take violent revenge upon the Catholics. Julian\u2019s successor\n however again issued strict laws against the sectaries, and\n schisms arose among themselves. Toward the end of the 4th\n century bishop Optatus of Mileve opposed them in his treatise\n _De Schismate Donatistarum Ll. VII._ In A.D. 400 Augustine,\n bishop of Hippo Regius, began his unwearied attacks upon this\n sect. The mildest terms were offered to induce the Donatists to\n return to the church. Many of the more moderate took advantage\n of the opportunity; but this only made the others all the\n more bitter. They refused repeated invitations to a discussion,\n fearing Augustine\u2019s masterly dialectic. Augustine, who at first\n maintained that force should not be used in matters of faith, was\n moved by the persistent stiffneckedness and senseless fanaticism\n of his opponents to change his opinion, and to confess that\n in order to restore such heretics to the church, to salvation,\n recourse must be had to violent compulsion (_coge intrare_,\n Lk. xiv. 23). A synod at Carthage in A.D. 405 called upon the\n Emperor Honorius to take proceedings against this stiffnecked\n sect. He did so by imposing fines, banishing their clergy,\n and taking their churches. Augustine renewed the challenge to\n a public disputation. The Donatists were at last compelled by\n the emperor to enter the lists. Thus came about the three days\u2019\n _Collatio cum Donatistis_ of A.D. 411 at Carthage. There appeared\n 279 Donatist and 286 Catholic bishops. Petilian and Primian were\n the chief speakers on the side of the Donatists, Augustine and\n Aurelian of Carthage on the other. The imperial commissioner\n assigned the victory to the Catholics. In vain the Donatists\n appealed. In A.D. 414 the Emperor declared that they had\n forfeited all civil rights, and in A.D. 415 he threatened\n all who attended their meetings with death. The Vandals, who\n conquered Africa in A.D. 429, persecuted Catholics and Donatists\n alike, and a common need furthered their reconciliation and\n secured a good mutual understanding.--The Donatists started from\n the principle that no one who is excommunicated or deserves to\n be excommunicated is fit for the performance of any sacramental\n action. With the Novatians they demanded the absolute purity\n of the church, but admitted that repentance was a means for\n regaining church fellowship. They maintained that they were\n the pure and the Catholics were schismatics, who had nothing\n in common with Christ, whose administration of the sacraments\n was therefore invalid and useless, so that they even rebaptized\n those who had Catholic baptism. The partiality of the state for\n their opponents and confused blending of the ideas of the visible\n and invisible church led them to adopt the view that church\n and state, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, had\n nothing in common with one another, and that the state should not\n interfere in religious matters.\n\n \u00a7 63.2. =The _Concilium Quinisextum_, A.D. 692.=--This Council\n claimed to be regarded as \u0153cumenical and was recognised as such\n even by Pope Sergius I. The Greeks had not yet got over their\n vexation at the triumph which Rome had won at the last \u0153cumenical\n Council (\u00a7 52, 8). It thus happened that among the multitude of\n harmless decrees the following six were smuggled in which were\n in flat contradiction to the Roman practice.\n\n 1. In enumerating the sources of the canon law alone valid\n almost all the Latin Councils and Papal Decretals were\n omitted, and the whole 85 _Canones Apostt._ (\u00a7 43, 4)\n included, whereas Rome had pronounced only the first\n 50 valid.\n\n 2. The Roman custom of enforcing celibacy on presbyters and\n bishops is condemned as unjustifiable and inhuman (\u00a7 45, 2).\n\n 3. Fasting on the Saturdays of the Quadragesima is forbidden\n (\u00a7 56, 4).\n\n 4. The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which makes the\n patriarch of Constantinople equal to the bishop of Rome is\n repeated and anew enforced (\u00a7 46, 1, 7).\n\n 5. The Levitical prohibition against blood and things strangled\n is sanctioned as still binding upon Christians, although it\n had never been enforced by the Roman church.\n\n 6. Images of Christ in the shape of a lamb, which were very\n common in the West, were forbidden. The papal legates\n subscribed the decrees of the Council; but the Pope forbade\n their publication in all the churches of the West. Compare\n further \u00a7 46, 11.\n\n\n\n\n VI. THE CHURCH OUTSIDE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.[185]\n\n\n \u00a7 64. MISSIONARY OPERATIONS IN THE EAST.\n\n The real missionarizing church of this period was the Western\n(\u00a7 75 ff.). It was pre-eminently fitted for this by its practical\ntendency and called to it by its intimate connection with the hordes\nof the migrating peoples. Examples of organized missionary activity in\nthe East are rare. Yet other more occasional ways were opened for the\nspread of Christianity outside of the empire, by Christian fugitives\nand prisoners of war, political embassies and trade associations.\nAnchorets, monks and stylites, too, who settled on the borders of\nthe empire or in deserts outside, by their extraordinary appearance\nmade a powerful impression on the surrounding savage tribes. These\nstreamed in in crowds, and those strange saints preached Christ to\nthem by word and work.\n\n \u00a7 64.1. =The Ethiopic-Abyssinian Church.=[186]--About A.D. 316\n a certain Meropius of Tyre on a voyage of discovery to the\n countries south of Egypt was murdered with his whole ship\u2019s\n company. Only his two nephews Frumentius and Aedesius were spared.\n They won the favour of the Abyssinian king and became the tutors\n of the heir apparent, Aizanas. Frumentius was subsequently, in\n A.D. 438, ordained by Athanasius bishop of the country. Aizanas\n was baptised, the church spread rapidly from Abyssinia to\n Ethiopia and Numidia. A translation of the bible into the Geez\n dialect, the language of the country, is attributed to Frumentius.\n Closely connected with the Egyptian mother church, it fell with\n it into Monophysitism (\u00a7 52, 7). In worship and discipline,\n besides much that is primitive, it has borrowed many things\n from Judaism, and retained many of the old habits of the country,\n _e.g._ observing the Sabbath alongside of the Sunday, forbidding\n certain meats, circumcision, covenanting. Their canon comprised\n 81 books: besides the biblical, there are 16 patristic writings\n of the Pre-Chalcedonian age.\n\n \u00a7 64.2. =The Persian Church.=--The church had taken root in\n Persia as early as the 3rd century. With the 4th century there\n came a sore time of bloody persecution, which was constantly fed\n partly by the fanatical Magians, partly by the almost incessant\n wars with the Christian Roman empire, which aroused suspicion of\n foreign sympathies hostile to the country. The first great and\n extensive persecution of the Christians broke out in A.D. 343\n under Shapur or Sapores [Sapor] II. It lasted 35 years and during\n this dreadful time 16,000 of the clergy, monks and nuns were\n put to death, but the number of martyrs from the laity was far\n beyond reckoning. Only shortly before his death Shapur [Sapor]\n stopped the persecution and proclaimed universal religious\n toleration. During 40 years\u2019 rest the Persian church attained\n to new vigour; but the fanaticism of Bishop Abdas of Susa who\n caused a fire-temple to be torn down in A.D. 418, occasioned\n a new persecution, which reached its height in A.D. 420 under\n Bahram or Baranes V. and was carried on for 30 years with the\n most fiendish ingenuity of cruel tortures. The generosity of a\n Christian bishop, Acacius of Amida in Mesopotamia, who by the\n sale of the church property redeemed a multitude of Persian\n prisoners of war and sent them to their homes, at last moved\n the king to stop the persecution. The Nestorians driven from the\n Roman empire found among the Persians protection and toleration,\n but were the occasion under king Firuz or Peroz of a new\n persecution of the Catholics, A.D. 465. In A.D. 498 the whole\n Persian church declared in favour of Nestorianism (\u00a7 52, 3),\n and enjoyed forthwith undisturbed toleration, developed to an\n unexpected extent, retained its bloom for centuries, gave itself\n zealously to scientific studies in the seminaries at Nisibis,\n and undertook successfully mission work among the Asiatic tribes.\n The war with the Byzantines continued without interruption.\n Chosroes II. advanced victoriously as far as Chalcedon in\n A.D. 616 and persecuted with renewed cruelty the Catholic\n Christians of the conquered provinces. Finally the emperor\n Heraclius plucked up courage. By the utter rout of A.D. 628\n the power of the Persians was broken (\u00a7 57, 5), and in A.D. 651\n the Khalifs overthrew the dynasty of the Sassanid\u00e6.\n\n \u00a7 64.3. =The Armenian Church.=--There were flourishing Christian\n churches in Armenia so early as Tertullian\u2019s time. The Arsacian\n ruler Tiridates III., from A.D. 286, was a violent persecutor\n of the Christians. During his reign, however, Gregory the\n Illuminator, the Apostle of Armenia, carried on his successful\n labours. He was the son of a Parthian prince, who, snatched\n when a child of two years\u2019 old by his nurse from the midst\n of a massacre of his whole family, received in Cappadocia a\n Christian training. In A.D. 302 he succeeded in winning over\n to Christianity the king and the whole country. He left behind\n him the church which he thus founded in a most prosperous\n condition. His grandson Husig, his great grandson Nerses I.\n and his son Isaac the Great held possession of the patriarchal\n dignity and flourished even in the hard times, when Byzantines,\n Arsacides, and Sassanid\u00e6 fought for possession of the country.\n Mesrop, with the help of Isaac, whose successor he became in\n A.D. 440 (dying in A.D. 441), gave to his church a translation\n of the bible into their own tongue, for which he had to invent\n a national alphabet. Under his successor, the patriarch Joseph,\n the famous religious war with the Persian Sassanid\u00e6 broke\n out, who wished to lead back the Armenians to the doctrine\n of Zoroaster. In the fierce battle at the river Dechmud in\n A.D. 451 the holy league was defeated. But Armenia still\n maintained amid sore persecution its Christian confession.\n In A.D. 651 the overthrow of the Sassanid\u00e6 brought it under\n the rule of the Khalifs.--The Armenian church had vigorously\n and earnestly warded off Nestorianism, but willingly opened\n its arms to Monophysitism introduced from Byzantine Armenia.\n At a synod at Feyin, in A.D. 527, it condemned the Chalcedonian\n dogma.--Gregory the Illuminator had excited among the Armenians\n an exceedingly lively interest in culture and science, and when\n Mesrop gave them an independent system of writing, the golden age\n of Armenian literature dawned (the 5th century). Not only were\n many works of classical and patristic Greek and Syrian literature\n made the property of the Armenians through translations, but\n numerous writers built up a literature of their own. The history\n of the conversion of Armenia was written in the 4th century\n by Agathangelos, private secretary of the king. Whether this\n was composed in Greek or in Armenian is doubtful; both texts\n are still extant, evidently much interpolated with fabulous\n matter and also in many points conflicting with one another.\n In the 5th century Eznik in his \u201cOverthrow of Heretics\u201d addressed\n a vigorous polemic against pagans, Persians, Marcionites and\n Manich\u00e6ans. Moses of Chorene, also a scholar of Mesrop, composed\n from the archives a history of Armenia, and Elisaeus described\n the Armeno-Persian religious war, in which, as secretary of the\n Armenian commander in chief, he had taken part. On the service\n done by the Mechitarists to the old Armenian literature, see\n \u00a7 164, 2.[187]\n\n \u00a7 64.4. =The Iberians=, in what is now called Georgia and Grusia,\n received Christianity about A.D. 326 through an Armenian female\n slave Nunia, whose prayer had healed many sick. The church then\n extended from Iberia to the =Lazians= in what is now Colchias\n and among the neighbouring =Abasgians=. In =India= Theophilus\n of Diu (an island of the Arabian Gulf?) found in the middle\n of the 4th century several isolated Christian communities. He\n was sent by his fellow-citizens as hostage to Constantinople and\n there was educated for the Arian priesthood. He then returned\n home and carried on a successful mission among the Indians.\n The relations of the Indian to the Persian church led to the\n former becoming affected with Nestorianism (\u00a7 52, 3). Cosmas\n Indicopleustes (\u00a7 48, 2) found in the 6th century three Christian\n churches still surviving in India. Theophilus also wrought in\n =Arabia=. He succeeded in converting the king of the Himyarite\n kingdom at Yemen. In the 6th century, however, a Jew Dhu-Nowas\n obtained for himself the sovereignty of Yemen and persecuted the\n Christians with unheard of barbarity. At last Eleesban king of\n Abyssinia interfered; the crowned Jew was slain, and from that\n time Yemen had Christian kings till the Persian Chosroes II. made\n it a Persian province in A.D. 616. Anchorets, monks and stylites\n wrought successfully among the Arab nomadic hordes.\n\n\n \u00a7 65. THE COUNTER-MISSION OF THE MOHAMMEDANS.[188]\n\n Abu Al\u2019 Kasem Mohammed from Mecca made his appearance as a prophet in\nA.D. 611, and founded a mixed religion of arid Monotheism and sensual\nEnd\u00e6monism drawn from Judaism, Christianity and Arabian paganism.\nHis work first gained importance when driven from Mecca he fled to\nMedina (Hejira, 15th July, A.D. 622). In A.D. 630 he conquered Mecca,\nconsecrated the old Heathen Kaaba as the chief temple of the new\nreligion, Islam (hence Moslems), and composed the Coran, consisting\nof 114 suras, which had been collected by his father-in-law, Abu Bekr.\nAt his death all Arabia had accepted his faith and his rule. As he made\nit the most sacred duty of his adherents to spread the new religion by\nthe sword and had inspired them with a wild fanaticism, his successors\nsnatched one province after another from the Roman empire and the\nChristian church. Within a few years, A.D. 633-651, they conquered\nall Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Persia, then, in A.D. 707, North Africa,\nand, in A.D. 711, Spain. Farther, however, they could not go for the\npresent. Twice they unsuccessfully besieged Constantinople, A.D. 669-676,\nand A.D. 717-718, and, in A.D. 732, Charles Martel at Tours completely\ncrushed all their hopes of extending further into the West. But the\nwhole Asiatic church was already reduced by their oppressions to the\nmost miserable condition, and three patriarchates, those of Alexandria,\nAntioch and Jerusalem, were forced to submit to their caprices. Amid\nmanifold oppressions the Christians in those conquered lands were\ntolerated on the payment of a tax, but fear and an eye to worldly\nadvantages led whole crowds of nominal Christians to profess Islam.\n\n \u00a7 65.1. =The Fundamental Principle of Islam= is an arid\n Monotheism. Abraham, Moses and Jesus are regarded as God-sent\n prophets. The miraculous birth of Jesus, by a virgin, is also\n accepted, and Mary is identified with Miriam the sister of Moses.\n The ascension of Christ is also received. Mohammed, the last and\n highest of all the prophets, of whom Moses and Christ prophesied,\n has restored to its original purity his doctrine, which had\n been corrupted by Jews and Christians. At the end of the days\n Christ will come again to conquer Antichrist and give universal\n sovereignty to Islam. Most conspicuous among the corruptions\n of the doctrine of Jesus is the dogma of the Trinity, which\n is without more ado pronounced Tritheism, and conceived of as\n including the mother of Jesus as the third person. So too the\n incarnation of God is regarded as a falsification. The doctrine\n of divine providence is strongly emphasized, but is contorted\n into the grossest fatalism. The Mussulman is in need of no\n atonement. Faith in the one God and His prophet Mohammed secure\n for him the divine favour, and his good works win for him the\n most abundant fulness of eternal blessedness, which consists in\n absolutely unrestricted sensual enjoyments. The constitution is\n theocratic; the prophet and his successors the Khalifs are God\u2019s\n vicegerents on earth. Worship is restricted to prayers, fastings\n and washings. The Sunna or tradition of oral utterances of the\n prophet is acknowledged as a second principal source for Islam,\n alongside of the Coran. The opposition of the Shiites to the\n Sunnites is rooted in the non-recognition of the first three\n Khalifs and the prophet\u2019s utterances only witnessed to by them.\n Mysticism was first fostered among the Ssufis. The Wechabites,\n who first appear in the 12th century, are the Puritans of Islam.\n\n \u00a7 65.2. =The Providential Place of Islam.=--The service under\n Providence rendered by Mohammedanism which first attracts\n attention is the doom which it executed upon the debased church\n and state of the East. But it seems also to have had a positive\n task which must be sought mainly in its relation to heathenism.\n It regarded the abolition of idolatry as its principal task.\n Neither the prophet nor his successors gave any toleration to\n paganism. Islam converted a mass of savage races in Asia and\n Africa from the most senseless and immoral idolatries to the\n worship of the one God, and raised them to a certain stage of\n culture and morality to which they could never have risen of\n themselves. But also upon yet another side, though only in a\n passing way, it has served a providential purpose, in spurring\n on medi\u00e6val Christianity by its example of devotion to scientific\n pursuits. Syncretic, as its religious and intellectual life\n originally was, during its flourishing period from A.D. 750,\n under the brilliant dynasty of the Abassidean Khalifs at Bagdad\n in Asia, and from A.D. 756 (comp. \u00a7 81) under the no less\n brilliant dynasty of the Ommaiadean Khalifs at Cordova in Spain,\n driven out by the Abassid\u00e6 from Damascus, it readily appropriated\n the elements of culture which the classical literature of\n the ancient Greeks afforded it (\u00a7 42, 4), and with youthful\n enthusiasm its scholars for centuries on this foundation kept\n alive and advanced scientific studies--philosophy, astronomy,\n mathematics, natural science, medicine, geography, history--and\n by their appropriation of those researches the Latin Middle Ages\n reached to the height of their scientific culture (\u00a7 103, 1).\n But also the reawakening of classical studies in the Byzantine\n Middle Ages (\u00a7 68, 1), which is of still more importance for the\n West (\u00a7 120, 1), is preeminently due to the impetus given by the\n scientific enthusiasm of the Moslems of Bagdad, who shamed the\n Greeks into the study of their own literature. With the overthrow\n of those two dynasties, the culture period of the Moslems closed\n suddenly and for ever, but not until it had accomplished its task\n for the Christian world.[189]\n\n\n\n\n THIRD SECTION.\n\n HISTORY OF THE GR\u00c6CO-BYZANTINE CHURCH\n IN THE 8TH-15TH CENTURIES\n (A.D. 692-1453).\n\n\n I. Developments of the Greek Church in Combination\n with the Western.\n\n\n \u00a7 66. ICONOCLASM OF THE BYZANTINE CHURCH (A.D. 726-842).[190]\n\n The worship of images (\u00a7 57, 4) had reached its climax in the East\nin the beginning of the 8th century. Even the most zealous defenders\nof images had to admit that there had been exaggerations and abuses.\nSome, _e.g._, had taken images as their godfathers, scraped paint off\nthem to mix in the communion wine, laid the consecrated bread first\non the images so as to receive the body of the Lord from their hands,\netc. A powerful Byzantine ruler, who was opposed to image worship from\npersonal dislike as well as on political grounds, applied the whole\nstrength of his energetic will to the uprooting of this superstition.\nThus arose a struggle that lasted more than a hundred years between\nthe enemies of images (\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) and the friends of images\n(\u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9), in which there stood, on the one side, the emperor\nand the army, on the other, the monks and the people. Twice it seemed\nas if image worship had been completely and for ever stamped out;\nbut on both occasions a royal lady secured its restoration. In practice\nindeed the Roman church remained behind the Greek, but in theory\nthey were agreed, and in the struggle it gave the whole weight of\nits authority to the friends of images. On the part taken by the\nFrankish church, see \u00a7 92, 1.\n\n \u00a7 66.1. =Leo III., the Isaurian, A.D. 717-741.=--Leo, who was\n one of the most powerful of the Byzantine emperors, after the\n attack of the Saracens on Constantinople, in A.D. 718, had\n been successfully repelled, felt himself obliged to take other\n measures against the aggressions of Islam. In the worship of\n images abhorred by Jews and Moslems he perceived the greatest\n obstacle to their conversion, and, being personally averse to\n image worship, he issued an edict, in A.D. 726, which first\n ordered the images to be placed higher in the churches that\n it might be impossible for the people to kiss them. But the\n peaceable overcoming of this deeply rooted form of devotion\n was frustrated by the unconquerable firmness of the ninety-year\n old patriarch Germanus in Constantinople, as well as by the\n opposition of the people and the monks. The greatest dogmatist\n of this age, Joh. Damascenus, who was secured from the rage\n of the emperor in Palestine under Saracen rule, issued three\n spirited tracts in defence of the images. A certain Cosmas\n took advantage of a popular rising in the Cyclades, had himself\n proclaimed emperor and went with a fleet against Constantinople.\n But Leo conquered and had him executed, and now in a second edict\n of A.D. 730 ordered all images to be removed from the churches.\n Now began a war against images by military force, which went\n to great excess in fanatical violence. Repeated popular tumults\n were quelled in blood. Only in Rome and North Italy did the\n powerful arm of the emperor make no impression. Pope Gregory II.,\n A.D. 715-731, treated him in his letters like a stupid,\n ill-mannered school-boy. In proportion as the bitterness\n against the emperor increased enthusiasm for the pope increased,\n and gave expression to itself in the most vehement revolts\n against the imperial Council. A great part of the exarchate\n (\u00a7 46, 9) surrendered voluntarily to the Longobards and so\n much of it in the north as remained with the emperor proved\n more obedient to the pope than to the sovereign. Gregory III.,\n A.D. 731-741, at a Synod in Rome in A.D. 731 excommunicated\n all enemies of images. The emperor fitted out a powerful fleet\n to chastise him, but a storm broke it up. He now deprived the\n pope of all his revenues from Southern Italy, severed Illyria\n (\u00a7 46, 5) in A.D. 732 from the papal chair and gave it to the\n patriarch of Constantinople, but in doing so he cut the last\n cord that bound the Roman chair to the interests of the Byzantine\n Court (\u00a7 82, 1).\n\n \u00a7 66.2. =Constantine V. A.D. 741-775.=--To the son and successor\n of Leo the monks gave the unsavoury names of Copronymus and\n Caballinus in token of their hatred, the latter on account\n of his love of horses, the former because it was said that\n at his baptism he had defiled the water. He was like his father\n a powerful ruler and soldier, and in the battle against images\n yet more reckless and determined. He conquered his brother-in-law\n who had rebelled with the aid of the friends of the images, and\n caused him to be cruelly treated and blinded. As popular tumults\n still continued, he thought to get ecclesiastical sanction\n for his principles from an \u0153cumenical Council. About 350 bishops\n assembled in Constantinople, A.D. 754. But, as the chair of\n Constantinople had just become vacant, while Rome, which had\n excommunicated the enemies of images, refused to answer the\n summons, and Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were under Saracen\n rule, there was not a single patriarch present at the Synod.\n The Council excommunicated all who made images of Christ, for\n it declared that the Supper was the only true image of Christ,\n and condemned every kind of veneration of images. These decrees\n were now relentlessly carried out with savage violence. Thousands\n of monks were scourged, imprisoned, banished, chased through\n the circus with nuns in their arms for the sport of the people,\n or forced into marriage, many had their eyes gouged out, or had\n their nose or ears cut off, and the monasteries were turned into\n barracks or stables. Even in private houses no image of a saint\n was any longer to be seen. From Rome Stephen II. protested\n against the decisions of the Council, and Stephen III. from\n a Lateran Synod of A.D. 769 thundered a fearful anathema against\n the enemies of images. But in the Byzantine empire monkery and\n image worship were well nigh extinguished.\n\n \u00a7 66.3. =Leo IV., Chazarus, A.D. 775-780.=--The son of\n Constantine was of the same mind with his father, but wanted\n his energy. His wife =Irene= was an eager friend of the images.\n When the emperor discovered this, he began to take active\n measures, but his suspiciously sudden death put a stop to\n operations. Irene now used the freedom which the minority\n of her son Constantine VI. afforded her for the introduction\n of image worship. She called a new Council at Constantinople\n in A.D. 786, which also Hadrian I. of Rome attended, while the\n other patriarchs, being under Saracen rule, took no part in it.\n But the imperial guard attacked the place where they were sitting,\n and broke up the Council. Irene now arranged for the =Seventh\n \u0152cumenical Council at Nic\u00e6a, A.D. 787=. The eighth and last\n session was held in the imperial palace at Constantinople, after\n the guards had been withdrawn from the city and disarmed. The\n Council annulled the decisions of A.D. 754, and sanctioned image\n worship for it allowed the bowing and prostration before the\n images (\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) as a token of the reverence\n which was due to the original, and declared that this in no\n way interfered with that worship (\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) which was due to\n God alone.[191]\n\n \u00a7 66.4. The next emperors were friendly to image worship, but\n the victory had departed from their standards. Then the army,\n which had always been hostile to images, proclaimed =Leo V.,\n the Armenian, A.D. 813-820=, emperor, an avowed opponent of\n images. He proceeded very cautiously, but the soldiers set aside\n his prudence and launched out into violent raids against images.\n At the head of the patrons of images was Theodorus Studita, abbot\n of the monastery of Studion (\u00a7 44, 2), a man of unfeigned piety\n and unfaltering decision of character, the most acute apologist\n of image worship, who had even in exile been eagerly promoting\n the interests of his party. He died in A.D. 826. Leo lost his\n life at the hand of conspirators. His successor, =Michael II.,\n Balbus, A.D. 820-829=, allowed at least that images should be\n reverenced in private. His son =Theophilus, A.D. 829-842=, on\n the other hand, made it the business of his life to root out\n entirely every trace of image worship. But his wife =Theodora=,\n who after his death conducted the government as regent, had it\n formally reintroduced by a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 842.\n Since then all opposition to it has ceased in the Greek church,\n and the day of the Synodal decision, 19th February, was appointed\n a standing festival of orthodoxy.\n\n\n \u00a7 67. DIVISION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN CHURCHES AND\n ATTEMPTS AT UNION, A.D. 857-1453.[192]\n\n The second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 had given the first occasion\nto the great schism which rent the Christian world into two halves\n(\u00a7 63, 2); Photius gave it a doctrinal basis in A.D. 867; and Michael\nC\u00e6rularius in A.D. 1053 completed its development. The increasing\nneed of the Byzantine government drove it to make repeated attempts\nat reconciliation, but these either were never concluded or the union,\nif at all completed, proved a mere paper union. The Sisyphus labour of\nunion efforts ended only with the overthrow of the Byzantine empire in\nA.D. 1453. The three stages referred to--the early misunderstandings,\nthe avowed doctrinal divergence, and the final decisive separation--as\nwell as the persistent rejection of attempts at reunion, were not\nwholly owing to the importance of ceremonial differences. After as\nwell as before there had been free church communion between them.\nIt was not owing to the importance of the almost solitary point of\ndoctrinal difference between them, in reference to the _filioque_\n(\u00a7 50, 7), where if there had been good will a common understanding\nmight easily have been won. It was really the papal claims to the\nprimacy to which the Greeks absolutely refused to submit.\n\n \u00a7 67.1. =Foundation of the Schism, A.D. 867.=--During the\n minority of the emperor Michael III., son of Theodora (\u00a7 66, 4),\n surnamed the Drunkard, his uncle Bardas, Theodora\u2019s brother,\n directed the government. Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople\n at that time, himself descended from the imperial family, lashed\n severely the godless, vicious life of the court, and in A.D. 857\n kept back from the communion the all-powerful Bardas, who lived\n in incestuous intercourse with his own daughter-in-law. He was\n then deposed and banished. =Photius=, the most learned man of his\n age, previously commander of the imperial bodyguard, was raised\n to the vacant chair, and inherited the hatred of all the friends\n of Ignatius. He made proposals of agreement which were proudly\n and scornfully rejected. He then held a Synod in A.D. 859, which\n confirmed the deposition of Ignatius and excommunicated him. But\n nothing in the world could make his party abandon his claims. Now\n Photius wished to be able to lay in the scales the Roman bishop\u2019s\n approval of his questionable proceedings. He therefore laid\n an account of matters highly favourable to himself before Pope\n =Nicholas I.=, and sought his brotherly love and intercessions.\n The pope answered that he must first examine the whole affair.\n His two legates, Rhodoald of Porto and Zacharias of Anagni, were\n bribed and at a Council at Constantinople in A.D. 861 gave their\n consent to the deposition of Ignatius. Nicholas, however, had\n other reporters. He excommunicated his own legates and pronounced\n Ignatius the lawful patriarch. Bitterness of feeling reached its\n height in Constantinople, when soon thereafter the Bulgarians\n broke their connection with the Byzantine mother church and\n submitted to the pope (\u00a7 73, 3). Photius now by an Encyclica\n of A.D. 866 called the patriarchs of the East to a Council\n at Constantinople, and charged the Roman church with the most\n extreme heresies; that it enjoined fasting on Saturday (\u00a7 56, 1),\n allowed milk, butter and cheese to be eaten during the first\n week of the Quadragesima (\u00a7 56, 7), did not acknowledge married\n priests (\u00a7 45, 2), did not prohibit the clergy from shaving the\n beard (\u00a7 45, 1), pronounced anointing by a presbyter invalid\n (\u00a7 35, 4), but above all, that by the addition of the _filioque_\n (\u00a7 50, 7) it had falsified the creed, recognising thus two\n principles and so falling back into dualism. With such heresies\n too the pope had now infected the Bulgarians. The meeting of the\n Council took place in A.D. 867. Three monks, tutored by Photius,\n represented the patriarchs under Saracen rule. Excommunication\n and deposition were hurled against the pope, and this sentence\n was communicated to the Western churches. The pope was evidently\n alarmed. He justified himself before the Frankish clergy and\n insisted that they should answer the charges of the Greeks\n in a scholarly reply. This was done by several, most ably by\n Ratramnus, monk at Corbie. But during that year, A.D. 867, the\n emperor Michael was murdered. His murderer and successor Basil\n the Macedonian undertook the patronage of the party of Ignatius,\n and asked of Pope Hadrian II. a new investigation and decision.\n A =Synod at Constantinople, A.D. 869=, counted by the Latins\n the 8th \u0153cumenical, condemned Photius and restored Ignatius.\n The deciding about the Bulgarians, however, was not committed\n to the Council but to the reputed representatives of the Saracen\n patriarchs as impartial umpires. They naturally decided in favour\n of the Byzantine patriarch. In vain the legates remonstrated.\n Photius in other respects under misfortune displays a character\n worthy of our esteem. For several years he languished without\n company, without books, under the strictest monastic rules.\n Yet he reconciled himself to Ignatius. Basil entrusted him with\n the education of his children, and on the death of Ignatius in\n A.D. 878, restored him to the patriarchate. But still the ban of\n an \u0153cumenical Council lay upon him. Only a new \u0153cumenical Council\n could vindicate him. John VIII. agreed to this against the\n remonstrances of the Bulgarians. But at the ninth =Council\n at Constantinople, A.D. 879=, the eighth according to the Greeks,\n the papal legates were completely duped. There was no mention of\n the Bulgarians, the Council of A.D. 869 was repudiated, and every\n one excommunicated who dared add anything to the creed. The pope\n afterwards indeed launched an anathema against the patriarch,\n his Council, and his followers. The succeeding emperor, Leo the\n Philosopher, A.D. 886-911, again deposed Photius in A.D. 886, but\n only that he might put an imperial prince in his place. Photius\n died in monastic exile in A.D. 891.\n\n \u00a7 67.2. =Leo VI., the Philosopher, A.D. 886-911.=--This emperor\n was three times married without having any children. He married\n the fourth only when he had assured himself that she would not\n be barren. The patriarch Nicolaus [Nicolas] Mysticus refused\n (\u00a7 61, 2) to celebrate the marriage and was deposed. A Synod\n at Constantinople in A.D. 906, attended by the legates of Pope\n Sergius III., approved the marriage and the deposition. But\n on his deathbed Leo repented of his violence. His brother and\n successor Alexander restored the patriarch Nicolas, and Pope\n John X. attended a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 920, which\n condemned the Council of A.D. 906, and pronounced a fourth\n marriage absolutely unallowable, but showed no inclination to\n make any concessions to the pope. New negociations were begun\n by the emperor =Basil II.= In consideration of a large sum of\n money the venal pope John XIX. was willing to acknowledge the\n Byzantines as \u0153cumenical patriarchs of the East, and to resign\n all claims of the chair of Peter upon the Eastern church. But the\n affair became known before it was concluded. The removal of the\n new Judas was loudly demanded throughout the West, and the pope\n was compelled to break off his negociations.\n\n \u00a7 67.3. =Completion of the Schism, A.D. 1054.=-Though so many\n anathemas had been flung at Rome by Byzantium and at Byzantium\n by Rome, they had hitherto been directed only against the persons\n and their followers, not against the respective churches as\n such. This defect was now to be supplied. The emperor Constantine\n Mon\u00f3machus sought the papal friendship which he thought necessary\n to the success of his warlike undertakings. But the patriarch\n =Michael C\u00e6rularius= frustrated his efforts. In company with the\n Metropolitan of the Bulgarians, Leo of Achrida, he addressed in\n A.D. 1053 an epistle to bishop John of Trani in Apulia, in which\n he charged the Latins with the worst heresies, and adjured the\n Western bishops to separate from them. To the heresies already\n enumerated by Photius, he added certain others; the use of blood\n and things strangled, the withdrawal of the Hallelujah during\n the fast season, and above all the use of unleavened bread in\n the Supper (\u00a7 58, 4), on account of which he invented for the\n heretics the name of Azymites. This letter fell into the hands\n of Cardinal =Humbert=, who translated it and laid it before pope\n Leo IX. A violent correspondence followed. The emperor offered\n to do anything to restore peace. At his request the pope sent\n three legates to Constantinople, among them the occasion of the\n strife, Humbert (\u00a7 101, 2), and Cardinal Frederick of Lothringen,\n afterwards pope Stephen IX. (\u00a7 96, 6). These fanned the flame,\n instead of quenching it. Imperial pressure indeed brought the\n abbot of Studion, Nicetas Pectoratus to burn his controversial\n treatise before the legates, but no threat nor violence could\n move to submission the patriarchs, on whose side were the people\n and the clergy. The legates finally laid a formal decree of\n excommunication on the altar of the church of Sophia, which\n Michael together with the other Eastern patriarchs solemnly\n returned, A.D. 1054.\n\n \u00a7 67.4. =Attempts at Reunion.=--The crusades increased the breach\n instead of healing it. Many negociations were begun but none of\n them came to much. At a Synod at Bari in Naples, in A.D. 1098,\n Anselm of Canterbury (\u00a7 101, 1), who then lived as a fugitive\n in Italy, proved to the Greeks there present the correctness\n of the Latin doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.\n In A.D. 1113, Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus, Archbishop of Milan,\n vindicated it in a complete discourse before the emperor at\n Constantinople. And in A.D. 1135, Anselm of Havelberg, who\n went to Constantinople as ambassador for Lothair II., disputed\n with the Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia, and afterwards at the\n command of the pope wrote down the disputation with creditable\n faithfulness. The hatred and abhorrence of the Greeks reached\n its climax on the erection of the Latin empire at Constantinople,\n A.D. 1204-1261 (comp. \u00a7 94, 4). Nevertheless =Michael Pal\u00e6ologus,\n A.D. 1260-1282=, who brought this dynasty to an end, strove\n on political grounds in every way possible to overcome this\n ecclesiastical schism. The patriarch Joseph of Constantinople\n and his librarian, the celebrated =Joannes Beccus=, stubbornly\n withstood him. The latter indeed in imprisonment became convinced\n that the differences were unessential and that a union was\n possible. This change of mind secured for him the patriarch\u2019s\n chair. Meanwhile the negotiations of the emperor with the pope,\n Gregory X., in which he acknowledged the Roman chair to be the\n highest court of appeal in doctrinal controversies, were brought\n to a point in the \u0153cumenical =Council at Lyons, A.D. 1274=,\n reckoned by the Latins the fourteenth. The imperial legates here\n acknowledged the primacy of the pope and subscribed a Roman creed,\n while to them was granted liberty to use their creed without the\n addition and to practise their peculiar ecclesiastical customs.\n Beccus vindicated this union in several treatises. But a change\n of dynasty overthrew him in A.D. 1283. Joseph was restored and\n the union of Lyons was broken up leaving no trace behind.\n\n \u00a7 67.5. The advance of the Turks made it absolutely necessary\n for the East Roman emperors to secure the support of the West\n by reconciling and uniting themselves with the papacy. But the\n powerful party of the monks, supported by popular prejudice\n against the proposal, thwarted the imperial wishes on all sides.\n The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem too were\n zealous opponents, not only animated by the old bitterness toward\n their more prosperous rivals on the chair of Peter, but also\n influenced against the views of the emperor by the policy of\n their Saracen rulers. The emperor =Andronicus III. Pal\u00e6ologus=\n won to his side the abbot =Barlaam= of Constantinople, hitherto,\n though born in Calabria and there educated in the Roman Catholic\n faith, a zealous opponent of the Western doctrine. Barlaam went\n at the head of an imperial embassy to Avignon where the pope\n at that time, Benedict XIII., resided, A.D. 1339. Negotiations,\n however, broke down through the obstinacy of the pope, who\n demanded of the Greeks above all unconditional submission in\n doctrine and constitution, and also showed not once any wish\n for renewing the conference.--On Barlaam, comp. \u00a7 69, 2.--The\n political difficulties of the emperor, however, continually\n increased, and so =Joannes V. Pal\u00e6ologus= took further steps.\n He himself in A.D. 1369 in Rome passed over to the Latin church,\n but neither did he get his people to follow him, nor did pope\n Urban V. get the Western princes to give help against the Turks.\n\n \u00a7 67.6. The union attempts of =Joannes VII. Pal\u00e6ologus= had more\n appearance of success. The emperor had won over the patriarch\n Joseph of Constantinople, as well as the clever and highly\n cultured archbishop =Bessarion= of Nic\u00e6a, and went personally\n in company with the latter and many bishops, in A.D. 1438,\n to the papal Council at =Ferrara= (\u00a7 110, 8), where the pope,\n Eugenius IV., fearing lest the Greeks might join the reformatory\n Council at Basel, showed himself very gracious. The Council,\n nominally on account of the outbreak of a plague at Ferrara\n was transferred to =Florence=, and here the union was actually\n consummated in A.D. 1439. The primacy of the pope was acknowledged,\n though not altogether without dubiety of expression, the ritual\n differences as well as the priestly marriages of the Greeks\n tolerated, the doctrinal difference reduced to a misunderstanding\n and the orthodoxy of both churches maintained. In the Latin text\n of the decree referred to the pope was acknowledged as \u201cSuccessor\n of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the vicar of Christ,\u201d\n as \u201chead of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all\n Christians, to whom plenary power was given by our Lord Jesus\n Christ to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church\u201d--yet\n with the significant addition \u201cin such a way as it is set forth\n in the \u0153cumenical Councils and in the sacred Canons,\u201d by which\n certainly the Greeks thought only of the Canons of Nic\u00e6a and\n Chalcedon referred to in \u00a7 46, 1, but the Latins mainly of the\n Pseudo-Decretals of \u00a7 87, 2; and thus it happens that in most\n of the Greek texts the propositions that define the universal\n primacy of the pope are either wanting, or essentially modified.\n The first place after the pope is given to the patriarch of\n Constantinople. In regard to the doctrine of the Procession\n of the Holy Spirit it was admitted that the Greek formula \u201c_ex\n Patre per Filium_\u201d was essentially the same as the Latin \u201c_ex\n Patre Filioque_,\u201d and by the definition \u201c_quod Sp. S. ex P. simul\n et F. et ex utroque \u00e6ternaliter tanquam ab uno principio et unica\n spiratione procedit_,\u201d the latter was saved from the charge of\n dualism. A new difference, however, came to light in reference\n to Purgatory (\u00a7 61, 4). The intercessions of the living and the\n presenting of masses for the dead were allowed by the Greeks as\n helping to secure the forgiveness of their still unatoned for\n venial sins, but they decidedly opposed the view that any of the\n dead could obtain this by his own temporary endurance of penal\n sufferings, and they would not hear of a fire as a means for its\n attainment. The Latins also taught that the unbaptized or those\n dying in mortal sin immediately pass into eternal condemnation\n and the perfectly pious immediately pass into God\u2019s presence;\n while the Greeks maintained that this happens only at the last\n judgment. After long disputes, the Greeks, urged by their emperor,\n at last gave in on both points. Without much difficulty they\n accepted the seven sacraments of the Westerns (\u00a7 104, 2). Thus\n was the union consummated amid embracings and jubilant shoutings.\n But in reality everything remained as of old. A powerful party at\n whose head stood archbishop Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus, who had\n been shouted down at Florence, roused the whole East against the\n union that had been made on paper. The new patriarch Metrophanes,\n whom they repudiated, was ridiculed as \u039c\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and in\n A.D. 1443 the rest of the Eastern patriarchs at a Synod at\n Jerusalem excommunicated all who maintained the union. When\n moreover the hoped for help from the West did not come even\n the union party lost their interest in it. Bessarion passed\n over to the Roman church, became cardinal and bishop of Tuscoli,\n and was as such on two occasions very near being made pope.[193]\n\n \u00a7 67.7. The Byzantine Christian empire went meanwhile rapidly\n to decay. On the 29th May, 1453, Constantinople was stormed by\n Mohammed II. The last emperor, Constantine XI., fell in a heroic\n struggle against tremendous odds. Mohammed conferred upon the\n patriarch Gennadius (\u00a7 68, 5) the spiritual primacy and even\n temporal supremacy and full jurisdiction over the whole orthodox\n inhabitants of the empire, making him, however, answerable for\n their conduct. The other two patriarchates of Jerusalem and\n Antioch were in religious matters co-ordinate, in political\n matters subordinate, to him. For the executing of his spiritual\n power he had around him a Synod of twelve archbishops, of whom\n four as holders of the four divisions of the patriarchal diocese\n resided in Constantinople. The Synod chose the patriarchs and\n the Sultan confirmed the elections.--All union negociations were\n now at an end, for the Porte could only wish for the continuance\n of the schism. The enormous crowds of Greek refugees who sought\n protection in foreign lands, especially in Italy, Hungary,\n Galicia, Poland, Lithuania, either went directly over to the\n Roman Catholic church, or formed churches of their own under\n the name of United Greeks, purchasing liberty to observe their\n old church constitution and liturgy by accepting the Romish\n doctrine and the papal primacy.\n\n\n\n\n II. Developments in the Eastern Church without the\n Co-operation of the Western.\n\n\n \u00a7 68. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.\n\n The iconoclastic struggle, A.D. 726-842, was to some extent a war\nagainst art and science. At least no period in the history of the Greek\nMiddle Ages is so poor in these as this. But about the middle of the\n9th century Byzantine culture awoke from its deep torpor to a vigour\nof which no one would have thought it capable. What is still more\nwonderful, for six hundred years it maintained its position without\na break at this elevation and prosecuted literary and scientific\nstudies with a zeal that seemed to be quickened as its political\ncondition became more and more desperate. What specially characterized\nthe scholarly efforts of this time was the revival of classical studies\nwhich from the 6th century had been almost entirely neglected. Now all\nat once the decaying Greeks, who were threatened with intellectual as\nwell as political bankruptcy, began to realize the rich heritage which\ntheir pagan forefathers had bequeathed them. They searched out these\ntreasures amid the dust of libraries and applied to them a diligence,\nan enthusiasm, a pride, which fills us with astonishment. The Hellenic\nintellect had, indeed, long lost its genial creative power. The most\nambitious effort of this age did not go beyond explanatory reproduction\nand scholarship. Upon theology, however, bound hard and fast in\ntraditional propositions and Aristotelian formul\u00e6, the revival of\nclassical studies had relatively little influence, and where it did\nbreak the fetters it only gave entrance to a deluge of heathen Hellenic\nviews that paganized Christianity.\n\n \u00a7 68.1. The shame caused by the zeal with which the Khalifs\n of the Abassidean line at the end of the 8th century applied\n themselves to the classical Greek literature seems to have given\n the first impulse to the =Revival of Classical Studies=. Behind\n this we must suppose there was the influence of the Byzantine\n rulers, unless they had lost all trace of national feeling.\n Bardas, the guardian and co-regent of Michael III. (\u00a7 67, 1),\n if there is nothing else in him worthy of praise, has the credit\n of having been the first to lay anew the foundation of classical\n studies by establishing schools and paying their teachers. Basil\n the Macedonian, although himself no scholar, patronized and\n protected the sciences. Photius was the teacher of his children,\n and implanted in them a love of study which they transmitted to\n their children and children\u2019s children. Leo, the Philosopher, the\n son, and Constantine Porphyrogenneta, the grandson, of Basil were\n the brilliant scholars in the Macedonian dynasty. Their place was\n taken by the line of the Comneni from A.D. 1057, which introduced\n a most brilliant period in the history of scientific studies.\n The princesses of this house, Eudocia and Anna Comnena, won high\n fame as gifted and learned authors. What Photius was for the\n age of the Macedonians, Psellus was for the age of the Comneni.\n Thessalonica vied with Constantinople as a new Athens in\n the brilliancy of its classical culture. The rudeness of\n the crusaders threatened during the sixty years\u2019 interregnum\n of the Latin dynasty, to undo the work of the Comneni. But\n when in A.D. 1261 the Pal\u00e6ologi again obtained possession of\n Constantinople, learning rose once more to the front and won\n an ever increasing significance. And when the Turks took it in\n A.D. 1453 crowds of learned Greeks settled in Italy and spread\n their carefully fostered culture all over the West.\n\n \u00a7 68.2. =Aristotle and Plato.=--The revival of classical studies\n secured again a preference for Plato, who seemed more classical,\n at least more Hellenic, than Aristotle. But the ecclesiastical\n imprimatur that had been given to Aristotle, which had been\n formally expressed by Joh. Damascenus, formed a barrier against\n the overflowing of Platonism into the theological domain. The\n church\u2019s distrust of Plato, on the other hand, drove many of\n the more enthusiastic friends of classical studies into a sort\n of Hellenic paganism. The eagerness of the struggle reached its\n height in the 15th century. Gemisthus Pletho moved heaven and\n earth to drive the hated usurper Aristotle from the throne of\n science. He called for unconditional surrender to the wisdom of\n the divine Plato and expressed the confident hope that soon the\n time would come when Christianity and Islam would be conquered\n and the religion of pure humanity would have universal sway.\n Of similar views were his numerous scholars, of whom the most\n distinguished was Bessarion (\u00a7 67, 6). But Aristotle also\n had talented representatives in George of Trebizond and his\n scholars. Numerous representatives of the two schools settled\n in Italy and there carried on the conflict with increasing\n bitterness.--Continuation \u00a7 120, 1.\n\n \u00a7 68.3. =Scholasticism and Mysticism= (\u03bc\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and\n \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03af\u03b1).--By the application of the Aristotelian\n method which Joh. Philoponus (\u00a7 47, 11) had suggested, and\n Joh. Damascenus had carried out, the scientific treatment of\n doctrine in the Greek church had taken a form which in many\n respects resembles the scholasticism of the Latin Middle Ages,\n without being able, however, to reach its wealth, power, subtlety\n and depth. But alongside of the dialectic scholastic treatment\n of dogma there was found, especially in the quiet life of the\n monasteries, diligent fostering of the mysticism based upon\n the pseudo-Areopagite (\u00a7 47, 11). Its chief representative\n was Nicolas Cabasilas. This mysticism never ran counter to\n the worship or doctrine of the church, but rather rendered to\n it unconditional acknowledgment, and was specially characterized\n by its decided preference for the symbolical, to which it is\n careful to attach a thoroughly sacramental significance. No\n reason existed for any hostile encounters between dialectic\n and mysticism.\n\n \u00a7 68.4. =The Branches of Theological Science.=--About the\n beginning of our period Joh. Damascenus collected the results\n of previous =Dogmatic= labours in the Greek church by the use\n of the dialectic forms of Aristotle into an organic system. His\n Ecdosis is the first and last complete dogmatic of the old Greek\n church. The manifold intercourse with the Latin church occasioned\n by the union efforts was not, however, without influence on\n the Greek church. In spite of the keenest opposition on debated\n questions, the far more thoroughly developed statement by Latin\n scholasticism of doctrines in regard to which both were agreed\n communicated itself to the Greek church, so that all unwittingly\n it adopted on many points the same bases and tendencies of\n belief. =Polemics= were constantly carried on with Nestorians,\n Monophysites and Monothelites, and fresh subjects of debate were\n found in the iconoclastic disputes, newly emerging dualistic\n sects, the Latin schismatics and the defenders of the union. By\n the changed circumstances of the time =Apologetics= again came\n to the front as a theological necessity. The incessant advance\n of Islam and the Jewish polemic, which was now gaining boldness\n from the protection of the Saracens, urgently demanded the\n work of the Apologist, but the dominant scholastic traditional\n theology of the Greeks in its hardness and narrowness was little\n fitted to avert the storm of God\u2019s judgment. Finally, too, the\n revival of classical studies and the introduction of pagan modes\n of thought were followed by a renewal of anti-pagan Apologetics\n (Nicolas of Methone). In =Exegesis= there was no independent\n original work. Valuable catenas were compiled by \u0152cumenius,\n Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus. =Church History= lay\n completely fallow. Only Nicephorus Callisti in the 14th century\n gave any attention to it (\u00a7 5, 1). Incomparably more important\n for the church history of those times are the numerous _Scriptores\n hist. Byzantin\u00e6_. As a writer of legends Simeon Metaphrastes in\n the 10th century (?) gained a high reputation.\n\n \u00a7 68.5. The most distinguished theologian of the 8th century\n was =Joannes Damascenus=. He was long in the civil service of\n the Saracens, and died about A.D. 760 as monk in the monastery\n of Sabas in Jerusalem. His admirers called him _Chrysorrhoas_;\n the opponents of image worship who pronounced a thrice repeated\n anathema upon him at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 754,\n called him Mansur. His chief work, which ranks in the Greek\n church as an epoch-making production, is the \u03a0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f74 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Its\n first part, \u039a\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, forms the dialectic, the second\n part, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, the historical, introduction to the third or\n chief part: \u1f1c\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, a systematic\n collection of the doctrines of faith according to the Councils,\n and the teachings of the ancient Fathers, especially of the three\n Cappadocians. His \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1 contain a collection of _loci\n classici_ from patristic writings on dogmatic and moral subjects\n arranged in alphabetical order. He wrote besides controversial\n tracts against Christological heretics, the Paulicians,\n the opponents of image worship, etc., and composed several\n hymns for church worship.[194]--Among the numerous writings\n of =Photius=, who died in A.D. 891, undoubtedly the most\n important is his Bibliotheca, \u039c\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. It gives reports\n about and extracts from 279 Christian and pagan works, which\n have since in great part been lost. In addition to controversial\n treatises against the Latins and against the Paulicians,\n there are still extant his \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03b9\u03b1, answers to more than\n 300 questions laid before him by bishop Amphilochius, and his\n Nomo-canon (\u00a7 43, 3) which is still the basis of Greek canon\n law, and was, about A.D. 1180, commented on by the deacon of\n Constantinople, Theodore Balsamon in his \u1f18\u03be\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.--The brilliant period of the Comnenian dynasty\n was headed by =Michael Psellus=, teacher of philosophy at\n Constantinople, a man of wide culture and possessed of an\n astonishingly extensive store of information which was evinced\n by numerous works on a variety of subjects, so that he was\n designated \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f55\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. He died in A.D. 1105. Among his\n theological writings the most important is \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd (comp. \u00a7 71, 3). As this work is of the utmost\n importance for the demonology of the Middle Ages, so the\n \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03ae, a compendium of universal science on\n the basis of theology, is for the encyclop\u00e6dic knowledge of that\n period. His contemporary =Theophylact=, archbishop of Achrida,\n in Bulgaria, left behind him an important commentary in the form\n of a catena. Euthymius Zigabenus, monk at Constantinople, in the\n beginning of the 12th century, composed, by order of the emperor\n Alexius Comnenus, in reply to the heretics, a \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f41\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd in 24 bks.,\n which gained for him great repute in his times. It is a mere\n compilation, and only where he combats the sects of his own\n age is it of any importance. His exegetical compilations are of\n greater value. The most important personality of the 12th century\n was =Eustathius=, archbishop of Thessalonica. As commentator on\n Homer and Pindar he has been long highly valued by philologists;\n but from the publication of his theological _Opuscula_ it appears\n that he is worthy of higher fame as a Christian, a theologian, a\n church leader and reformer of the debased monasticism of his age\n (\u00a7 70, 4). His friend and pupil, =Michael Acominatus= of Chon\u00e6,\n archbishop of Athens, treated with equal enthusiasm of the church\n and his fatherland, of Christian faith and Greek philosophy, of\n patristic and classical literature, and in a beautiful panegyric\n raised a becoming memorial to his departed teacher. His younger\n brother, =Nicetas Acominatus=, a highly esteemed statesman of\n Constantinople, wrote a \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 in 27 bks., which\n consists of a justificatory statement of the orthodox doctrine\n together with a refutation of heretics, much more independent\n and important than the similar work of Euthymius. He died in\n A.D. 1206. At the same time flourished the noble bishop =Nicolas\n of Methone= in Messenia, whose refutation of the attacks of the\n neo-Platonist Proclus, \u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 is one of the most valuable productions of this period.\n His doctrine of redemption, which has a striking resemblance\n to Anselm of Canterbury\u2019s theory of satisfaction (\u00a7 101, 1), is\n worthy of attention. He also contributed several tracts to the\n struggle against the Latins. During the times of the Pal\u00e6ologi,\n A.D. 1250-1450, the chief subjects of theological authorship\n were the vindication and denunciation of the union. =Nicolas\n Cabasilas=, archbishop of Thessalonica and successor of Palamas,\n deserves special mention. He was like his predecessor the\n vindicator of the Hesychasts (\u00a7 69, 2), and was himself one\n of the noblest mystics of any age. He died about A.D. 1354.\n His chief work is \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2. His mysticism is\n distinguished by depth and spirituality as well as by reformatory\n struggling against a superficial externalism. He also shares the\n partiality of Greek mysticism for the liturgy as his _Expositio\n Miss\u00e6_ shows. From his contemporary =Demetrius Cydonius= we have\n an able treatise _De Contemnenda Morte_. Archbishop =Simeon of\n Thessalonica= belongs to a somewhat later time, about A.D. 1400,\n a thorough expert in classical and patristic literature and a\n distinguished church leader. His comprehensive work, _De Fide,\n Ritibus et Mysteriis Ecclesiast._ is an important source of\n information about the church affairs of the Greek Middle Ages.\n =Marcus Eugenicus= of Ephesus, the most capable opponent of the\n Florentine union (\u00a7 67, 2), besides controversial tracts, wrote\n a treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 as a philosophico-dogmatic\n foundation of the doctrine of eternal punishment at which the\n emperor John VII. Pal\u00e6ologus had taken offence as incompatible\n with divine justice and human frailty. His disciple Gregorius\n [Gregory] Scholarius, known as a monk by the name =Gennadius=,\n was the first patriarch of Constantinople after it had been taken\n by the Turks. At the Council of Florence he still supported the\n union, but was afterwards its most vigorous assailant. In the\n controversy of the philosophers he contended against Pletho for\n the old-established predominance of Aristotle. At the request of\n the Sultan, Mohammed II., he laid before him a _Professio fidei_.\n\n \u00a7 68.6. A religious romance entitled =Barlaam and Josaphat=\n whose author is not named, but evidently belonged to the East,\n was included, even in the Middle Ages, among the works of\n Joh. Damascenus, read by many especially in the West, translated\n into Latin and rendered often in metrical form. It describes\n the history of the conversion of the Indian prince Josaphat\n by the eremite Barlaam with the object of showing the power of\n Christianity against the allurements of sin and its superiority\n to other religions. An uncritical age accepted the story as\n historical, and venerated its two heroes as saints. The Roman\n martyrology celebrated the 27th Nov. in their memory. Liebrecht\n has discovered that the romance so popular in its days was\n but a Christianized form of a legendary history of the life\n and conversion of the founder of Buddhism, which existed in\n pre-Christian times, and has come down to us under the title\n _Lalita ristara Pur\u00e2na_, often copying its original even in the\n minutest details.\n\n\n \u00a7 69. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES IN THE 12TH-14TH CENTURIES.\n\n With the mental activity of the Comnenian age there was also\nreawakened a love of theological speculation and discussion, and\nseveral doctrinal questions engaged considerable attention. Then there\ncame a lull in the controversial strife for two hundred years, to be\nroused once more by a question of abstruse mysticism.\n\n \u00a7 69.1. =Dogmatic Questions.=--Under the emperor Manuel\n Comnenus, A.D. 1143-1180, the question was discussed whether\n Christ presented His sacrifice for the sins of the world only to\n the Father and the Holy Spirit, or also at the same time to the\n Logos, _i.e._ to Himself. A Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 1156\n sanctioned the latter notion.--Ten years later a controversy\n arose over the question whether the words of Christ: \u201cThe Father\n is greater than I,\u201d refer to His divine or to His human nature\n or to the union of the two natures. The discussion was carried on\n by all ranks with a liveliness and passionateness which reminds\n one of the similar controversies of the 4th century (\u00a7 50, 2).\n The emperor\u2019s opinion that the words applied to the God-man\n gained the victory at a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 1166.\n The dissentients were punished with the confiscation of their\n goods and banishment.--Manuel excited a third controversy by\n objecting to the anathema of \u201cthe God of Mohammed\u201d in the formula\n of abjuration for converts from Mohammedanism. In vain did the\n bishops show the emperor that the God of Mohammed was not the\n true God. The formula had to be altered.\n\n \u00a7 69.2. =The Hesychast Controversy, A.D. 1341-1351.=--In the\n monasteries of Mount Athos in Thessaly the Areopagite mysticism\n had its most zealous promoters. Following the example given three\n centuries earlier by Simeon, an abbot of the monastery of Mesnes\n in Constantinople, the monks by artificial means put themselves\n into a condition that would afford them the ecstatic vision\n of God which the Areopagite had extolled as the highest end\n of all mystic endeavours. Kneeling in a corner of the solitary\n closed cell, the chin pressed firmly on the breast, the eyes set\n fixedly on the navel, and the breath held in as long as possible,\n they sank at first into melancholy and their eyes became dim.\n Continuing longer in this position the depression of spirit which\n they at first experienced gave way to an inexpressible rapture,\n and at last they found themselves surrounded by a bright halo of\n light. They called themselves _Resting Ones_, \u1f21\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, and\n maintained that the brilliancy surrounding them was the uncreated\n divine light which shone around Christ on Mount Tabor. Barlaam\n (\u00a7 67, 5), just returned from his unfortunate union expedition,\n accused the monks and their defender, Gregorius [Gregory] Palamas,\n afterwards archbishop of Thessalonica, as Ditheistic heretics,\n scornfully styling them _navel-souls_, \u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9. But a Council\n at Constantinople, in A.D. 1341, the members of which were\n unfavourable to Barlaam because of his union efforts, approved\n the doctrine of uncreated divine light which as divine \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\n is to be distinguished from the divine \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. Barlaam, in order\n to avoid condemnation, recanted, but withdrew soon afterwards\n to Italy, where he joined the communion of the Latin church\n in A.D. 1348, and died as a bishop in Calabria. A disciple\n of Barlaam, Gregorius [Gregory] Acindynos and the historian\n Nicephorus Gregoras [Gregory] continued the controversy against\n the Hesychasts. Down to A.D. 1351 as many as three Synods had\n been held, which all decidedly favoured the monks.\n\n\n \u00a7 70. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP AND LIFE.\n\n The Byzantine emperors had been long accustomed to carry out in a\nvery high-handed manner their own will even in regard to the internal\naffairs of the church. The anointing with sacred oil gave them a\nsacerdotal character and entitled them to be styled \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. Most of\nthe emperors, too, from Leo the Philosopher (\u00a7 68, 1), possessed some\nmeasure of theological culture. The patriarchate, however, if amid so\nmany arbitrary appointments and removals it fell into the proper hands,\nwas always a power which even emperors had to respect. What protected\nit against all encroachments of the temporal power was the influence\nof the monks and through them of the people. In consequence of the\ncontroversies about images, Theodorus Studita (\u00a7 66, 4) founded a\nstrong party which fought with all energy against every interference\nof the State in ecclesiastical matters and against the appointing of\necclesiastical officers by the temporal power, but only with temporary\nsuccess. The monks, who had been threatened by the iconoclastic\nIsaurian with utter extermination, at the restoration grew and\nprospered more than ever in outward appearance, but gave way more\nand more to spiritual corruption and extravagance. The Eastern monks\nhad not that genial many-sided culture which was needed for the\ncultivation of the fields and the minds of the barbarians. They\nwere deficient in those powers of tempering, renovating and ennobling,\nwhereby the monks of the West accomplished such wonderful results.\nBut, nevertheless, if in those debased and degenerate days one looks\nfor examples of fidelity to convictions, firmness of character,\nindependence and moral earnestness, he will always find the noblest\nin the monasteries.--Public worship had already in the previous period\nattained to almost complete development, but theory and practice\nreceived enrichment in various particulars.\n\n \u00a7 70.1. =The Arsenian Schism, A.D. 1262-1312.=--Michael\n Pal\u00e6ologus, after the death of the emperor Theodore Lascaris\n in A.D. 1259, assumed the guardianship of his six years\u2019 old\n son John, had himself crowned joint ruler, and in A.D. 1261 had\n the eyes of the young prince put out so as to make him unfit\n for governing. The patriarch Arsenius then excommunicated him.\n Michael besought absolution, and in order to obtain it submitted\n to humiliating penances; but when the patriarch insisted that\n he should resign the throne, the emperor deposed and exiled\n him, A.D. 1267. The numerous adherents of Arsenius refused to\n acknowledge the new patriarch Joseph (\u00a7 67, 4), seceded from the\n national church, and when their leader died in exile in A.D. 1273,\n their veneration for him expressed itself in burning hatred\n of his persecutors. When Joseph died in A.D. 1283, an attempt\n was made to decide the controversy by a direct appeal to God\u2019s\n judgment. Each of the two parties cast a tract in defence of its\n position into the fire, and both were consumed. The Arsenians,\n who had expected a miracle, felt themselves for the moment\n defeated and expressed a readiness to be reconciled. But on\n the third day they recalled their admissions and the schism\n continued, until the patriarch Niphon in A.D. 1312 had the bones\n of Arsenius laid in the church of Sophia and pronounced a forty\n days\u2019 suspension on all the clergy who had taken part against him.\n\n \u00a7 70.2. =Public Worship.=--In the Greek church preaching retained\n its early prominence; the homiletical productions, however, are\n but of small value. The objection to hymns other than those found\n in Scripture was more and more overcome. As in earlier times\n (\u00a7 59, 4) Troparies were added to the singing of psalms, so now\n the New Testament hymns of praise and doxologies were formed\n into a so-called \u039a\u03b1\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd, _i.e._ a collection of new odes arranged\n for the several festivals and saints\u2019 days. The 8th century was\n the Augustan age of church song. To this period belonged the\n celebrated \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03c9\u03b4\u03bf\u03af, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus,\n Cosmas of Jerusalem, and Theophanes of Nic\u00e6a. The singing after\n this as well as before was without instrumental accompaniment and\n also without harmonic arrangement.--There was a great diversity\n of opinion in regard to the idea of the sacraments and their\n number. Damascenus speaks only of two: Baptism and the Lord\u2019s\n Supper. Theodorus Studita, on the other hand, accepts the\n six enumerated by the Pseudo-Areopagite (\u00a7 58). Petrus [Peter]\n Mogilas in his Anti-Protestant _Confessio orthodoxa_ of A.D. 1643\n (\u00a7 152, 3) is the first confidently to assert that even among\n the Latins of the Middle Ages the Sacraments had been regarded\n as seven in number. The Greeks differed from the Latins in\n maintaining the necessity of immersion in baptism, in connecting\n the chrism with the baptism, using leavened bread in the Supper\n and giving both elements to all communicants. From the time of\n Joh. Damascenus the teachers of the church decidedly subscribed\n to the doctrine of Transubstantiation; but in regard to penance\n and confession they stoutly maintained (\u00a7 61, 1), that not the\n priest but God alone can forgive sins. The _Unctio inferiorum_,\n \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, also made way in the Greek church, applied in the form\n of the cross to forehead, breast, hands and feet; yet with this\n difference that, expressly repudiating the designation \u201cextreme\u201d\n unction, it was given not only in cases of mortal illness, but\n also in less serious ailments, and had in view bodily cure as\n well as spiritual benefit.--The emperor Leo VI. the Philosopher\n made the benediction of the church (\u00a7 61, 2) obligatory for a\n legally valid marriage.\n\n \u00a7 70.3. =Monasticism.=--The most celebrated of all the monastic\n associations were those of Mount Athos in Thessaly, which was\n covered with monasteries and hermit cells, and as \u201cthe holy\n mount\u201d had become already a hallowed spot and the resort of\n pilgrims for all Greek Christendom. The monastery of Studion,\n too (\u00a7 44, 3), was held in high repute. There was no want of\n ascetic extravagances among the monks. There were numerous\n stylites; many also spent their lives on high trees, \u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9,\n or shut up in cages built on high platforms (\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9), or\n in subterranean caverns, etc. Others bound themselves to\n perpetual silence. Many again wore constantly a shirt of iron\n (\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9), etc. A rare sort of pious monkish practice made\n its appearance in the 12th century among the =Ecet\u00e6=, \u1f39\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n They were monks who danced and sang hymns with like-minded nuns\n in their monasteries after the pattern of Exod. xv. 20, 21.\n Although they continued orthodox in their doctrine and were\n never charged with any act of immorality, Nicetas Acominatus\n proceeded against them as heretics.\n\n \u00a7 70.4. =Endeavours at Reformation.=--In the beginning of\n the 12th century a pious monk at Constantinople, Constantinus\n Chrysomalus, protested against prevailing hypocrisy and formalism.\n A decade later the monk Niphon took a similar stand. Around both\n gathered groups of clergy and laymen who, putting themselves\n under their pastoral direction and neglecting the outward\n forms of the church, applied themselves to the deepening of\n the spiritual life. Both brought down on themselves the anathema\n of the church. The patriarch Cosmas, who was not convinced that\n Niphon was a heretic and so received him into his house and at\n his table, was deposed in A.D. 1150. Eustathius, archbishop of\n Thessalonica (\u00a7 68, 5), carried on his reformatory efforts quite\n within the limits of the dominant institutions of the church,\n and so kept himself safe from the machinations of his enemies.\n Relentlessly and powerfully he struggled against the corruption\n in the Christian life of the people, and especially against\n the formalism and hypocrisy, the rudeness and vulgarity, the\n spiritual blindness and pride, and the eccentric caricatures of\n ascetism that were exhibited by the monks, though he was himself\n in heart and soul a monk. Two hundred years later Nicolas\n Cabasilas (\u00a7 68, 5) yet more distinctly maintained that a\n consistent life was the test and love the root of all virtue.\n\n\n \u00a7 71. DUALISTIC HERETICS.\n\n Remnants of the Gnostic-Manich\u00e6an heresy lingered on into the 7th\ncentury in Armenia and Syria, where the surrounding Parseeism gave them\na hold and support. Constantinus of Mananalis near Samosata gathered\nthese together about the middle of the 7th century and reformed them\nsomewhat in the spirit of Marcion (\u00a7 27, 11). The Catholics, sneeringly\ncalled by them \u1fec\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, gave the name of =Paulicians= to them because\nthey regarded Paul alone as a true apostle. Even before the rise of the\nPaulicians, a sect existed in Armenia called =Children of the Sun= who\nhad mixed up the Zoroastrian worship with Christian elements. They, too,\nduring the 9th and 10th centuries, by reorganization reached a position\nof more importance, and represented, like the Paulicians, a reformatory\nopposition to the formal institutions of the Catholic church. A similar\nattitude was assumed by the =Euchites= in Thrace during the 11th\ncentury. Like the old Euchites (\u00a7 44, 7), they got their name from\nthe unceasing prayers which they regarded as the token of highest\nperfection. Their dualistic-gnostic system is met with again among\nthe =Bogomili= in Bulgaria. These were still more decidedly hostile\nto the Catholic church, and had adopted the anthropological views\nof Saturninus and the Ophites as well as the trinitarian theory\nof Sabellius (\u00a7 27, 6, 9; 33, 7). All these sects were accused by\ntheir Catholic opponents with entertaining antinomian doctrines and\npractising licentious orgies and unnatural abominations.\n\n \u00a7 71.1. =The Paulicians.=--They called themselves only \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af,\n but were in the habit of giving to their leaders and churches the\n names of Paul\u2019s companions and mission stations. They combined\n dualism, demiurgism and docetism with a mysticism that insisted\n upon inward piety, demanded a strict but not rigorous asceticism,\n forbade fasting and allowed marriage. Their worship was very\n simple, their church constitution moulded after the apostolic\n pattern, with the rejection of the hierarchy and priesthood. They\n were specially averse to the accumulation of ceremonies and the\n veneration of images, relics and saints in the Catholic church.\n They also urged the diligent study of Scripture, rejecting,\n however, the Old Testament, and the Jewish-Christian gospels\n and epistles of the New Testament. The Catholic polemists\n of the 9th century traced their origin and even their name\n (=\u03a0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03ca\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9) to a Manich\u00e6an family of the fourth century,\n a widow Callinice and her two sons Paul and John. None of the\n distinctive marks of Manich\u00e6ism, however, are discoverable\n in them, and their founding by Constantine of Mananalis is a\n historic fact, as also that he, in A.D. 657, assumed the Pauline\n name of Sylvanus. The first church, which he called _Macedonia_,\n was founded by him at Cibossa in Armenia. From this point he made\n successful missionary journeys in all directions. The emperor\n Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, began a bloody persecution\n of the Paulicians. But the martyr enthusiasm of Sylvanus, who\n was stoned in A.D. 685, made such an impression upon the imperial\n officer Symeon, that he himself joined the sect, was made their\n chief under the name of Titus, and on the renewal of persecution\n in A.D. 690 joyfully died at the stake. His successor Gegnesius,\n who took the name of Timothy, was obliged by Leo the Isaurian to\n undergo an examination under the patriarch of Constantinople, had\n his orthodoxy attested, and received from the iconoclast emperor\n a letter of protection. Soon, however, divisions sprang up within\n the sect itself. One of their chiefs Baanes, on account of his\n antinomian practices, was nicknamed \u1f41 \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 the smutty. But,\n about A.D. 801, Sergius Tychicus, converted in earlier years\n by a Paulician woman, who directed him to the Bible, made his\n appearance as a reformer and second founder of the sect. He\n died in A.D. 835. Leo the Armenian, A.D. 813-820, organized an\n expedition for their conversion. The penitents were received back\n into the church, the obstinate were executed. A mob of Paulicians\n murdered the judges, fled to the Saracen regions of Armenia, and\n founded at Argaum, the ancient Colosse, a military colony which\n made incessant predatory and retaliating raids upon the Byzantine\n provinces. They were most numerous in Asia Minor. The empress\n Theodora (\u00a7 66, 4) carried out against them about A.D. 842 a\n new and fearfully bloody persecution. Many thousands were put to\n death. This too was the fate of an officer of high rank. His son,\n Carbeas, also an officer, incited by an ardent desire for revenge,\n gathered about 5,000 armed Paulicians around him in A.D. 844,\n fled with them to Argaum, and became military chief of the sect.\n New crowds of Paulicians streamed daily in, and the Khalifs\n assigned to them two other fortified frontier cities. With a\n well organized army, thirsting for revenge, Carbeas wasted the\n Byzantine provinces far and wide, and repeatedly defeated the\n imperial forces. Basil the Macedonian after two campaigns, at\n last in A.D. 871, hemmed in the Paulician army in a narrow pass\n and annihilated it. Their political power was now broken. The\n sect, however, still continued to gather members in Syria and\n Asia Minor. In A.D. 970, the emperor John Tzimisces transported\n the greater part of them as watchers of the frontier of Thrace,\n where Philippopolis became their Zion. They soon had possession\n of all Thrace. Alexius Comnenus, A.D. 1081-1118, was the first\n earnestly again to attempt their conversion. He himself appeared\n at Philippopolis in A.D. 1115, disputed a whole day with their\n leaders, promised and threatened, rewarded and punished, but\n all his efforts were fruitless. From that time we hear nothing\n more of them. Their remnants probably joined the Euchites and\n the Bogomili.\n\n \u00a7 71.2. =The Children of the Sun=, or Arevendi were a sect\n gathered and organized in the 9th century in Armenia by a\n Paulician Sembat in the country town of Thontrace into a separate\n community of Thontracians. In A.D. 1002 the metropolitan Jacob\n of Harkh gave a Christian tinge to their doctrine, went through\n the country preaching repentance and the performances of ritual\n observances, and obtained much support from clergy and laity. The\n Catholicus of the Armenian church caused him to be branded and\n imprisoned. He made his escape, but was afterwards slain by his\n opponents.\n\n \u00a7 71.3. =The Euchites=, Messelians [Messalians], Enthusiasts,\n attracted the attention of the government in the beginning of\n the 11th century as a sect widely spread in Thrace. In common\n with the earlier Euchites (\u00a7 44, 7) they had great enthusiasm\n in prayer, but they were distinguished from them by their dualism.\n Their doctrine of the two sons of God, Satana\u00ebl and Christ, shows\n a certain relation to the form of Persian dualism, which derives\n the two opposing principles, Ormuzd and Ahriman, from one eternal\n primary essence, Zeruane Acerene. The germs of this sect may\n have come from the transplanting of Paulicians to Thrace by the\n emperor Tzimisces. The Byzantine government sent a legate to\n Thrace to suppress them. This may have been Michael Psellus\n (\u00a7 68, 5) whose \u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd is the only\n source of information we have regarding them.\n\n \u00a7 71.4. =The Bogomili=, \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, taught: that Satana\u00ebl, the\n firstborn son of God, as chief and head over all angels, clothed\n with full glory of the Godhead, sat at the right hand of the\n Father; but, swelling with pride, he thought to found an empire\n independent of his Father and seduced a portion of the angels to\n take part with him. Driven with them out of heaven, he determined\n after the pattern of the creation of the Father (Gen. i. 1) to\n create a new world out of chaos (Gen. ii. 3 ff.). He formed the\n first man of earth mixed with water. When he set up the figure,\n some of the water ran out of the great toe of the right foot\n and spread out over the ground; and after he had breathed his\n breath into it, that also escaped owing to the looseness of the\n figure by the toe, permeated the soil moistened with the water\n and animated it as a serpent. At Satana\u00ebl\u2019s earnest entreaty the\n heavenly Father took pity on the miserable creature, and gave\n it life by breathing into it His own breath. Afterwards with\n the Father\u2019s help Eve, too, was created. Satana\u00ebl in the form\n of the serpent seduced, deceived and lay with Eve in order that\n by his seed, Cain and his twin sister Calomina, Adam\u2019s future\n descendants, Abel, Seth, etc., might be oppressed and brought\n into bondage. Jealous lest the latter should obtain that heavenly\n dwelling place from which they had been driven, Satana\u00ebl\u2019s angels\n seduced their daughters (Gen. vi.). From this union sprang giants\n who rebelled against Satana\u00ebl, but were destroyed by him in the\n flood. Henceforth he reigned unopposed as \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, seduced\n the greater part of mankind, and endowed Moses with the power of\n working miracles as the instrument of his tyranny. Only a few men\n under the oppression of his law attained the end of their being;\n the sixteen prophets and those named in Matt. i. and Luke iii.\n Finally, in the year 5,500 after the creation of man, the supreme\n God moved with pity caused a second son, the Logos, to go forth\n from His bosom, who as chief of the good angels is called Michael,\n and sent Him to earth for man\u2019s redemption. He entered in an\n ethereal body through the right ear into the virgin to be born\n of her with the semblance of an earthly body. Mary noticed\n nothing of all this. Without knowing how or whence, she found\n the child in swaddling clothes before her in the cave. His\n death on the cross was naturally in appearance only. After his\n resurrection he showed himself to Satana\u00ebl in his true form,\n bound him with chains, robbed him of his divine power, and\n compelled him to abandon his divine designation, by taking the\n El from his name, so that he is henceforth called Satan. Then He\n returned to the Father, took the seat that formerly was Satana\u00ebl\u2019s\n at His right hand, and sinks again into the bosom of the Father\n out of which He had come. This, however, did not take place\n before a new A\u00ebon [\u00c6on], the Holy Spirit, emanated from the\n Godhead, and was sent forth as continuator and completer of the\n work of redemption. This Spirit, too, after he has finished his\n task will sink back again into the Father\u2019s bosom.--Of the Old\n Testament the Bogomili acknowledged only the Psalter and the\n Prophets; of the New Testament books they valued most the\n Gospel of John. Veneration of relics and images, as well as\n the sign of the cross they abhorred as demoniacal inventions.\n Church buildings were regarded by them as the residences of\n demons. Satana\u00ebl himself in earlier days resided in the temple\n of Jerusalem, later in the church of Sophia at Constantinople.\n Water baptism, which was introduced by John the Baptist a\n servant of Satana\u00ebl, they rejected; but the baptism of Christ is\n spiritual baptism (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2=_Consolamentum_). It was imparted\n by laying the Gospel of John on the head of the subject of\n baptism, with invocation of the Holy Spirit and chanting the\n Lord\u2019s Prayer. They declared the Catholic mass to be a sacrifice\n presented to demons; the true eucharist consists in the spiritual\n nourishment by the bread of life brought down in Christ from\n heaven, to which also the fourth petition in the Lord\u2019s Prayer\n refers. They placed great value upon prayer, especially the use\n of the Lord\u2019s Prayer. So too they valued fasting. Their ascetism\n was strict and required abstinence from marriage and from\n the eating of flesh. But prevarication and dissimulation they\n regarded as permissible.--The emperor Alexius Comnenus caused\n their chief Basil to be brought to Constantinople, under the\n delusive pretext of wishing himself to become a proselyte of\n the sect, got him to open all his heart, and enticed him under\n the semblance of a purely private conference to make reckless\n statements, while behind the curtain a judge of heresies was\n taking notes. This first act in the drama was followed by a\n second. The sentence of death was passed upon all adherents of\n Basil who could be laid hold upon. Two great funeral piles were\n erected, one of which was furnished with the figure of the cross.\n The emperor exhorted them, at least to die as true Christians,\n and in token of this to choose the place of death provided with\n a cross. Those who did so were pardoned, the rest for the most\n part condemned to imprisonment for life. Basil himself, however,\n was actually burnt, A.D. 1118. The sect was not by any means thus\n rooted out. The Bogomili hid themselves mostly in monasteries,\n and Bulgaria long remained the haunt of dualistic heresy, which\n spread thence through the Latin church of the West.\n\n\n \u00a7 72. THE NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES OF THE EAST.\n\n The Nestorian and Monophysite churches of the East owed the\nprotection and goodwill of their Moslem rulers to their hostile\nposition in regard to the Byzantine national church. Among the Persian\nNestorians as well as among the Syrian and Armenian Monophysites we find\nan earnest endeavour after scholarship and great scientific activity.\nThey were the teachers of the Saracens in the classical, philosophical\nand medical sciences, and with no little zeal pursued the study\nof Christian theology. The Nestorians also long manifested great\nearnestness in missions. Only when the science-loving Khalifs gave\nplace to Mongolian and Turkish barbarians did those churches lose\ntheir prestige, and that stagnation and torpidity passed over them in\nwhich they still lie. In order to crown the Florentine union attempts\nof A.D. 1439 (\u00a7 67, 6), Rome solemnly proclaimed in the immediately\nfollowing year the complete union with all the detached churches of\nthe East. But this was a vain self-delusion or a bit of jugglery. Men\npretending to be deputed by those churches treated about restoration to\nthe bosom of the church, which was accorded them amid great applause.\n\n \u00a7 72.1. =The Persian Nestorians=, or Chaldean Christians\n (\u00a7 64, 2), stood in peculiarly friendly relations to the Khalifs,\n who, in the Nestorian opposition to Theotokism, worship of saints,\n images and relics, and priestly celibacy, saw an approach to a\n rational Christianity more in accordance with the Moslem ideal.\n The Nestorian seminaries at Edessa, Nisibis, Seleucia, etc., were\n in high repute. The rich literature issued by them is, however,\n mostly lost, and what of it remains is known only by Asseman\u2019s\n [Assemani\u2019s] quotations (_Biblioth. Orientalia_). Among the later\n Nestorian authors the best known is Ebed Jesus, Metropolitan\n of Nisibis, who died in A.D. 1318. His writings treat of all\n subjects in the domain of theology. The missionary zeal of the\n Nestorians continued unabated down to the 13th century. Their\n chief mission fields were China and India. At the beginning\n of the 11th century they converted the prince of the Karaites,\n a Tartar tribe to the south of Lake Baikal, who as vassals of\n the great Chinese empire had the name Ung-Khan. A large number\n of the people followed their prince. The Mongol conqueror\n Genghis-Khan married the daughter of the Karaite prince, but\n quarrelled with him, drove him from his throne, and took his life,\n A.D. 1202.--With the overthrow of the Khalifs by Genghis-Khan\n in A.D. 1219, the prosperity of the Nestorian church came to an\n end. At first the Nestorians attempted missionary operations not\n unsuccessfully among the Mongols. But the savage Tamerlane, the\n Scourge of Asia, A.D. 1369-1405, drove them into the inaccessible\n mountains and wild ravines of the province of Kurdistan.[195]\n\n \u00a7 72.2. Among the =Monophysite Churches= the most important was\n the =Armenian= (\u00a7 64, 3). It boasted, at least temporarily and\n partially, of political independence under national rulers. The\n Armenian patriarch from the 12th century had his residence in\n the monastery of Etshmiadzin at the foot of Ararat. The literary\n activity in the translation of classical and patristic writings,\n as well as in the production of original works, reached a\n particularly high point in the 8th and then again in the 12th\n century. To the earlier period belong the patriarch Johannes\n Ozniensis and the metropolitan Stephen of S\u00fcnik, to the later,\n the still more famous name of the patriarch Nerses IV. Clajensis,\n whose epic \u201cJesus the Son\u201d is regarded as the crown of Armenian\n poetry, and his nephew, the metropolitan Nerses of Lampron. The\n two last named readily aided the efforts for reunion with the\n Byzantine church, but owing to the troubles of the time these\n came to nothing. The Western endeavours after union which were\n actively carried on from the beginning of the 13th century, split\n upon the dislike of the Armenian church to the Western ritual,\n and found acceptance with only a relatively small fragment of\n the people. These _United Armenians_ acknowledged the primacy of\n the pope and the catholic system of doctrine, but retained their\n own constitution and liturgy.--In =the Jacobite-Syrian Church=\n (\u00a7 52, 7), too, theological and classical studies were prosecuted\n with great vigour. The most distinguished of its scholars during\n our period was George, bishop of the Arabs, who died in A.D. 740.\n He translated and annotated the Organon of Aristotle, and wrote\n exegetical, dogmatic, historical and chronological works, also\n poems on various themes, and a number of epistles important for\n the history of culture during these times, in which he answered\n questions put to him by his friends and admirers. The brilliant\n Gregory Abulfarajus is the last of the distinguished scholars of\n the Jacobite-Syrian church. He was the son of a converted Jewish\n physician, and hence he is usually called Barhebr\u00e6us. He was\n made bishop of Guba, afterwards Maphrian of Mosul, and died\n in A.D. 1286. His noble and truly benevolent disposition, his\n extraordinary learning, the rich and attractive productions\n of his pen, and his skill as a physician made him universally\n revered by Christians, Mohammedans and Jews. Among his writings,\n for the most part still in manuscript, the most important\n and best known is the _Chronicon Syriacum_.--The Jacobite\n church suffered most in =Egypt=. The perfidy of the Copts, who\n surrendered the country to the Saracens, was terribly avenged.\n From A.D. 1254 the Fatimide Khalifs held them down under the\n most severe oppression, and this became yet more severe under\n the Mamelukes. The Copts were completely driven out of the\n cities, and even in the villages maintained only a miserable\n existence. Their church was now in a condition of utter\n stagnation. In =Abyssinia= (\u00a7 64, 1) the national rulers\n maintained their position, though pressed within narrower\n limits from time to time by the Saracens. But here, too, church\n life became fossilized. At the head of the church was an Abbuna\n consecrated by the Coptic patriarch (\u00a7 64, 1; 165, 3).\n\n \u00a7 72.3. =The Maronites= (\u00a7 52, 8) attached themselves to the\n Western church on the appearance of the crusades in A.D. 1182,\n renouncing their Monothelite heresy and acknowledging the primacy\n of the pope, but retaining their own ritual. In consequence of\n the Florentine union measures they renewed their connection in\n A.D. 1445, and subsequently adopted also the doctrinal conclusions\n of the Council of Trent. Their numbers at the present day amount\n to somewhere about 200,000.\n\n \u00a7 72.4. =The Legend of Prester John.=--In A.D. 1144 Bishop Otto\n of Freisingen obtained from the bishop of Cabala in Palestine,\n whom he met at Viterbo, information about a powerful Christian\n empire in Central Asia, and published it in A.D. 1145 in his\n widely-read Chronicle. According to this story the king of that\n region, a Nestorian Christian, who was named Prester John, had\n not long before driven to flight the Mohammedan kings of the\n Persians and Medes, and thus delivered from great danger the\n crusaders in the Holy Land. He had also wished to go to the\n help of the church of Jerusalem, but was prevented by the Tigris\n which overflowed its banks. Twenty years later appeared a writing\n attributed to Prester John, first referred to by the Chronicler\n Alberich. It was addressed to the European princes in a Latin\n translation which contained the most fabulous stories, borrowed\n from the Alexander legends, about the extent and glory of\n his empire and the many wonders in nature, white lions, the\n ph\u0153nix, giants and pigmies, dog-headed and horned men, fauns,\n satyrs, cyclops, etc., which were to be seen in his country; and\n notwithstanding all these absurdities it was received as genuine.\n The pope, Alexander III., took occasion from its appearance to\n send an answer to Prester John by his own physician Philip, of\n whose fate nothing more is known. When in A.D. 1219 the first\n news reached Palestine of the irrepressible advance of Mongolian\n hordes under Genghis Khan, the crusaders felt justified in\n assuming that he was the successor of the celebrated Prester John,\n and was now to accomplish what his distinguished predecessor\n had wished to undertake. But they were soon cruelly undeceived.\n The missionaries sent to the Mongols about the middle of\n the 13th century (\u00a7 93, 15), reported that the last Prester\n John had lost his kingdom and his life in battle with Genghis\n Khan. Nevertheless the belief in the continued existence of an\n exceedingly glorious and powerful empire ruled by a Christian\n priest in further India was not by any means overthrown; but it\n was no longer sought in an Asiatic but in an African \u201cIndia,\u201d and\n the Portuguese actually believed that at last the famed Prester\n John had been found in the Christian king of Abyssinia, so that\n that country was known down to the 17th century as _Regnum presb.\n Joannis_.--The Jacobite historian Barhebr\u00e6us had identified the\n first Presbyter-king with the prince of the Mongolian Karaites\n converted by the Nestorians. His name Ung-Khan or Owang-Khan\n corresponded both to the name Joannes and to the Chaldean\n \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d4\u05b2\u05e0\u05b8\u05d0=priest. This notion prevailed until recently the Orientalist\n Oppert by careful examination and comparison of all Oriental\n and Western reports reached the conclusion (\u00a7 93, 16) that these\n legends are to be referred to the kingdom established about\n A.D. 1125 by Kur-Khan, prince of the tribe of the Caracitai in\n the Mandshuria of to-day. This prince, who was probably himself\n a Nestorian Christian, favoured the establishment of Christianity\n in his country; but this was utterly destroyed by Genghis Khan so\n early as A.D. 1208. The title Prester or Presbyter given to the\n prince of this tribe is to be explained perhaps by the statement\n of the missionary Ruysbroek that almost all male Nestorians in\n Central Asia received priestly consecration.[196]\n\n\n \u00a7 73. THE SLAVONIC CHURCHES ADHERING TO THE ORTHODOX\n GREEK CONFESSION.\n\n Among the crowds of immigrants whom the wanderings of the people had\nset in motion, the Germans and the Slavs are those whose future is of\nmost historic interest. The former went at once in a body over to the\nRoman Catholic church, and at first it appeared as if the Slavs were\nwith similar unanimity to attach themselves to the Byzantine orthodox\nchurch. But only the Slavs of the Eastern countries remained true to\nthat communion, though they were mostly with it brought under the yoke\nof the Turkish power. So was it with the specially promising Bulgarian\nchurch. All the more important was the incomparably more significant\ngain which the Greek church made in the conversion of the Russians.\n\n \u00a7 73.1. Soon after Justinian\u2019s time the Slavic hordes began to\n overflow the =Greek Provinces=--Macedonia, Thessaly, Hellas and\n Peloponnesus. The old Hellenic population was mostly rooted out;\n only in well fortified cities, especially coast towns, as well as\n on the islands, did the Greek people and the Christian confession\n remain undisturbed. The empress Irene made the first successful\n attempt to restore Slavic Greece to the allegiance of the empire\n and the church, and Basil the Macedonian, A.D. 867-886, completed\n the work so thoroughly that at last even the old pagan Mainottes\n (\u00a7 42, 4) in the Peloponnesus bent their necks to the double yoke.\n Regenerated Hellenism by its higher culture and national, as well\n as ecclesiastical, tenacity, completely absorbed by assimilation\n the numerically larger Slavic element of the population, and\n Mount Athos with its hermits and monasteries (\u00a7 70, 3) became\n the Zion of the new church.\n\n \u00a7 73.2. The =Chazari= in the Crimea asked about A.D. 850 for\n Christian missionaries from Constantinople. The court sent them\n a celebrated monk Constantine, surnamed the Philosopher, better\n known under his monkish name of =Cyril=. Born at Thessalonica,\n and so probably of Slavic descent, at least acquainted with the\n language of the Slavs, he converted in a few years a great part\n of the people. In A.D. 1016, however, the kingdom of the Chazari\n was destroyed by the Russians.\n\n \u00a7 73.3. =The Bulgarians= in Thrace and M\u0153sia had obtained a\n knowledge of Christianity from Greek prisoners, but its first\n sowing was watered with blood. A sister, however, of the Bulgarian\n king Bogoris had been baptized when a prisoner in Constantinople.\n After her liberation, she sought, with the help of the Byzantine\n monk =Methodius=, a brother of Cyril, to win her brother to\n the Christian faith. A famine came to their aid, and a picture\n painted by Methodius, representing the last judgment, made a\n deep impression on Bogoris. In A.D. 861 he was baptized and\n compelled his subjects to follow his example. But soon thereafter,\n Methodius, along with his brother Cyril, was called to labour in\n another field, in Moravia (\u00a7 79, 2), and political considerations\n led the Bulgarian prince in A.D. 866 to join the Western church.\n At his request pope Nicholas I. sent bishops and clergy into\n Bulgaria to organize the church there after the Roman model.\n Byzantine diplomacy, however, succeeded in winning back the\n Bulgarians, and at the \u0153cumenical Council at Constantinople in\n A.D. 869, their ambassadors admitted that the Bulgarian church\n according to divine and human laws belonged to the diocese of the\n Byzantine patriarch (\u00a7 67, 1). Meantime the two Apostles of the\n Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, by the invention of a Slavic alphabet\n and a Slavic translation of the Bible, laid the foundation of a\n Slavic ecclesiastical literature, which was specially fostered\n in Bulgaria under the noble-minded prince Symeon, A.D. 888-927.\n Basil II., the Slayer of the Bulgarians, conquered Bulgaria in\n A.D. 1018. It gained its freedom again, together with Walachia,\n in A.D. 1186; but fell a prey to the Tartars in A.D. 1285, and\n became a Turkish province in A.D. 1391.\n\n \u00a7 73.4. =The Russian Church.=--Photius speaks in A.D. 866 of the\n =Conversion of the Russians= as an accomplished fact. In the days\n of the Grand Duke Igor, about A.D. 900, there was a cathedral at\n Kiev. Olga, Igor\u2019s widow, made a journey to Constantinople and\n was there baptized in A.D. 955 under the name Helena. But her son\n Sw\u00e4toslaw could not be persuaded to follow her example. The aged\n princess is said according to the report of German chroniclers\n to have at last besought the emperor Otto I. to send German\n missionaries, and that in response Adalbert of Treves, afterwards\n archbishop of Magdeburg, undertook a missionary tour, from which,\n however, he returned without having achieved his purpose, after\n his companions had been slain. Olga\u2019s grandson, Vladimir, \u201cEqual\n of the Apostles,\u201d was the first to put an end to paganism in\n the country. According to a legend adorned with many romantic\n episodes he sent ten Boyars in order to see how the different\n religions appeared as conducted in their chief seats. They were\n peculiarly impressed with the beautiful service in the church of\n Sophia. In A.D. 988, in the old Christian commercial town Cherson,\n shortly before conquered by him, Vladimir was baptized with the\n name Basil, and at the same time he received the hand of the\n princess Anna. The idols were now everywhere broken up and burnt;\n the image of Perun was dragged through the streets tied to the\n tail of a horse, beaten with clubs and thrown into the Dnieper.\n The inhabitants of Kiev were soon afterwards ordered to gather\n at the Dnieper and be baptized. Vladimir knelt in prayer on the\n banks and thanked God on his knees, while the clergy, standing\n in the stream, baptized the people. On the further organization\n of the Russian church Anna exercised a powerful and salutary\n influence. Vladimir died in A.D. 1015. His son Jaroslaw I., the\n Justinian of the Russians, attended to the religious needs of his\n people by the erection of many churches, monasteries and schools,\n improved the worship, enriched the psalmody, awakened a taste for\n art and patronized learning. The monastery of Petchersk at Kiev\n was the birthplace of Russian literature and a seminary for the\n training of the clergy. Here, at the end of the 11th century, the\n monk Nestor wrote his annals in the language of the country. The\n metropolitan of Kiev was the spiritual head of the whole Russian\n church under the suzerainty of the patriarch of Constantinople.\n After the great fire of A.D. 1170, which laid the glory of Kiev\n in ashes, the residency of the Grand Duke was transferred to\n Vladimir. In A.D. 1299 the metropolitan also took up his abode\n there, but only for a short time; for in A.D. 1328 the Grand Duke\n Ivan Danilowitsch settled at Moscow and the metropolitan went\n there along with him. The patriarch of Constantinople on his own\n authority consecrated in A.D. 1353 a second Russian metropolitan\n for the forsaken Kiev, to whom he assigned the Southern and\n Western Russian provinces which since A.D. 1320 had been under\n the rule of the pagan Lithuanians. This schism was overcome\n in A.D. 1380 on the next occasion of a vacancy in the Moscow\n chair by the appointment to Moscow of the Kiev metropolitan. But\n the Lithuanian government, which had meanwhile become Catholic\n (\u00a7 93, 15), compelled the South Russian bishops in A.D. 1414 to\n choose a metropolitan of their own independent of Moscow, who in\n A.D. 1594 with his whole diocese at the Synod of Brest (\u00a7 151, 3)\n attached himself to Rome. The primate of Moscow continued under\n the jurisdiction of Constantinople until, in A.D. 1589, the\n patriarch Jeremiah II. (\u00a7 139, 26), on the occasion of his being\n personally present at Moscow voluntarily declared the Russian\n church independent of him, and himself consecrated Job, the\n metropolitan of that time, its first patriarch.[197]\n\n \u00a7 73.5. =Russian Sects.=--About A.D. 1150, the monk Martin, an\n Armenian by birth, insisted upon a liturgical reform that seemed\n to him most necessary. Among other things he declared that it was\n sinful to lead the subject of baptism to the baptismal font from\n right to left or from south to north; the direction should be\n reversed following the course of the sun. But it seemed to him\n most important that a reform should be made in the hitherto\n prevalent mode of making the sign of the cross. Instead of\n symbolizing, as up to this time had been done, the two natures in\n Christ and the three persons in the Trinity by bending the little\n finger and the thumb, and making the sign of the cross with other\n three, they made this sign with the fore and middle fingers.\n For nearly ten years this monk was allowed to disseminate his\n errors unchecked, till a Council obliged him to retract. Two\n hundred years later a certain Carp Strigolnik at Novgorod in\n A.D. 1375 publicly accused the clergy of sinning, because,\n in accordance with an old custom, they took fees in assisting\n in the consecration of bishops, and demanded of all orthodox\n Christians that they should separate from them as unworthy of\n their office. But he, along with many of his followers, was\n mobbed by the adherents of the opposite party and drowned in\n the Volga. More dangerous than all the earlier sectaries was\n the so-called Jewish sect at the end of the 15th century,\n which sought to reduce orthodox Christianity to a rationalistic\n cabbalistic Ebionitism. About A.D. 1470 the Jew Zachariah arrived\n at Novgorod. He won two distinguished priests Alexis and Denis to\n his views, that Christ was nothing more than an ordinary Jewish\n prophet, that the Mosaic law is a divine institution and is of\n perpetual obligation. By the advice of the Jew the two priests\n continued to profess the greatest zeal for the ceremonial laws\n of the Church, and by strict observance of the fasts obtained\n a great reputation for piety, but secretly they wrought all the\n more successfully for the dissemination of their sect among all\n classes of the people. When the czar, Ivan III., in A.D. 1480,\n came to Novgorod, they made so favourable an impression on\n him that he took them with him to Moscow, where they reaped a\n rich harvest for their secret doctrine. They succeeded through\n their influence with the czar in placing at the head of the\n whole Russian church a zealous proselyte for their sect in the\n archimandrite Zosima. Meanwhile at Novgorod iconoclast excesses\n were committed by the sectaries, which the archbishop of that\n place, Gennadius, set himself to suppress by imposing generally\n mild penalties. His successor Joseph Ssanin proceeded much more\n energetically. He did not rest till the czar in A.D. 1504 called\n a Church Synod at Novgorod which condemned the chiefs of the sect\n to be burnt, and their followers to be shut up in monasteries.\n Even the metropolitan Zosima as a favourer of the sect was sent\n to a monastery; but Alexis managed so cleverly that he retained\n his office and dignity to the end of his life. Secret remnants\n of this sect, as well as of the two previously referred to,\n continued to exist for a long time, even down to the 17th\n century, when sectarianism in the Russian Church made again\n a new departure (\u00a7 163, 10).\n\n \u00a7 73.6. =Romish Efforts at Union.=--From a very early time Rome\n cast a covetous glance at the young Russian church, and she\n spared neither delicate hints nor attempts to subdue by force\n by the aid of Danes, Swedes, Livonians and at a later time,\n the Poles. In order to avert this danger and to obtain from\n the West assistance against the oppressive yoke of the Mongols,\n A.D. 1234-1480, the Grand Duke Jaroslav [Jaroslaw] II. of\n Novgorod was not averse to a union. His son Alexander succeeded\n him in A.D. 1247. By a glorious victory over the Swedes in\n A.D. 1240, on the Neva, he won for himself the surname Newsky,\n and in A.D. 1242 he defeated the Livonians on the ice of Lake\n Peipus. Pope Innocent IV. who had already in A.D. 1246 nominated\n Arch bishop Albert Suerbeer (\u00a7 93, 12) a legate to Russia with the\n power to erect bishoprics there, addressed an earnest exhortation\n to the young prince in A.D. 1248 with promises of help against\n the Mongols, urging him to go in the footsteps of his father and\n to secure his own and his subjects\u2019 salvation by doing what his\n father had promised. The Grand Duke referred to the wisest men\n of the land and answered the Pope: From Adam to the flood, from\n that to the Confusion of languages, etc., down to Constantine and\n the seventh \u0153cumenical Council, we know the true history of the\n Church, but yours we do not wish to acknowledge. Alexander Newsky\n died in A.D. 1263, and has been ever since venerated by his\n country as a national hero and by his Church as a national saint.\n The prospects of the Roman Curia were more favourable during\n the 14th century owing to the Lithuanian and Polish supremacy in\n South and West Russia, and by the schism of the Russian Church\n into Kiev and Moscow primacies. In those Southern and Western\n provinces there was originally less disinclination to Rome than\n in Moscow. Still even here we meet during the 15th century in the\n metropolitan Isidore, born in Thessalonica, a prelate who made\n everything work toward a union with Rome. When the Union Synod\n of A.D. 1438 was to meet at Ferrara (\u00a7 67, 6), he represented to\n the Grand Duke Vassili that it was his duty to appear there. He\n gave a hesitating and unwilling consent. At the Council Isidore\n along with Bessarion showed himself a zealous promoter of the\n union. He returned in A.D. 1441 as cardinal and papal legate.\n But when at the first public service in Moscow he read aloud the\n union documents, the Grand Duke had him imprisoned and banished\n to a monastery. He escaped from his prison and died in Rome in\n A.D. 1643.--Continuation, \u00a7 151, 3.\n\n\n\n\n SECOND DIVISION.\n\n THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERMAN AND ROMAN CHURCH\n DURING THE MIDDLE AGES.[198]\n\n\n \u00a7 74. CHARACTER AND DIVISIONS OF THIS PERIOD\n OF THE DEVELOPMENT.\n\n With the historically significant appearance of the Germanic peoples,\nfrom whose blending with the old Celtic and Latin races of the conquered\ncountries the _Romance_ group of nationalities has its origin, there\nbegins a new phase in the historical development of the world and the\nchurch. The so-called migration of the nations produced an upheaval\nand revolution among the very foundations and springs of history such\nas have never since been seen. For a similar significance cannot be\nascribed to the appearance at a somewhat later period of a motley crowd\nof Slavic tribes and a detached contingent of the Turanian-Altaic race\n(Finns, Magyars, etc.), because the stream of their development ran in\nthe same channel. Thus the appearance of the Germans forms the watershed\nbetween the old world and the new. This dividing boundary, however,\nis not a straight line; for the shoots of the old world run on for\ncenturies alongside of and among the young growths of the new world.\nIn so far as those remnants of the old have no relation to the new\nand work out uninfluenced by their surroundings their own material\nin their own way, the history of their developments has no place here;\nbut even these demand consideration at this point in so far as they\naffect the development of the new world as a means of educating and\nmoulding, arresting and perverting. Just as the history of the church\nand the world as a whole is distributed into ancient and modern,\nso the special history of the Germano-Roman world can and must be\ndistributed into ancient and modern, the dividing boundary of which\nis the Reformation of the 16th century. The earlier of these two phases\nof history presents itself to us with a Janus-head, whose two faces are\ndirected the one to the ancient, the other to the modern world. This\nfollows from the fact that the groups of peoples referred to did not\nrequire any longer to pursue the weary way of their development on\ntheir own charges, but rather entered upon the spiritual heritage of\nthe defunct ancient world, and were able by means thereof more quickly\nand surely to grow to the maturity of their own proper and independent\nrank and culture. The Roman and, for some branches of the Slavic races,\nalso the Byzantine, church was the bearer and medium of this spiritual\nheritage, and as such became teacher and disciplinarian of the young\nworld. The Reformation is the emancipation from the administrator of\ndiscipline, whose leading strings were cast off by the youth when he\nreached the maturity of man\u2019s estate. It is the assertion of the German\nnation that it had reached its intellectual majority.\n\n \u00a7 74.1. =The Character of Medi\u00e6val History.=--As its name implies\n the medi\u00e6val period of church history is one of transition from\n the old to the new. The old is the now completed development\n of Christianity under the moulding influences of the ancient\n Greek and Roman world; the new is the complete incorporation of\n the special forms of life and culture that characterize the new\n peoples, who are placed by means of the migration of the nations\n in the foreground of history. But since the peculiar culture\n of these nations was first present only potentially and as a\n capacity, and was to realize itself first through the influence\n of the early Christian culture, between the old and the new a\n middle and intermediate age intervened, the extent of which was\n just that influence of the old completed culture upon the new\n developing culture. This conflict during the whole course of the\n Middle Ages was carried on by those powerful waves of action and\n reaction (formation, deformation, reformation), which, however,\n amid the ferment of the times displayed an ever varying mixing\n of the one with the other. The Middle Ages have brought forth\n the most magnificent phenomena, the papacy, the monastic system,\n scholasticism, etc., but characteristic of them all is that\n crude blending of the three kinds of movement named above, which\n hindered its effectiveness and led to its own deterioration.\n First in the beginning of the 16th century did the reformatory\n endeavours become so mature and strong that it could assume a\n purer form and carry out its efforts with success. With this too\n we reach the end of the Middle Ages and witness the birth of the\n modern world.\n\n \u00a7 74.2. =Periods in the Church History of the German-Roman\n Middle Ages.=--The first regular period is marked by the end of\n the Carolingian age, which may be regarded as completed by the\n dying out of the German Carolingians in A.D. 911. The movement\n in all the chief departments of the church was hitherto regular\n and unbroken: before Charlemagne an ascending one, during his\n reign reaching the summit, and after his death declining. It is\n the =universal German= period of history. The fundamental idea\n of the Carolingian dynasty, which survived even its weakest\n representatives, was no other than the combination of all\n German, Roman and Slavic nationalities under the sceptre of\n one German empire. The last German Carolingian carried this\n idea with him to the grave. The powerful impulse present even in\n the 9th century toward national separation and the dismemberment\n of the Carolingian empire into independent Germanic, Romanic and\n Slavic nations has since asserted its irresistible power. But\n with the Carolingian empire the Carolingian epoch of civilization\n also came to an end. And even the glory of the papacy, whose\n intrigues had undermined the empire, because it had thus snapped\n the branch on which it sat, now sank into the lowest depths of\n weakness and corruption. When we take a general survey of the\n beginning of the 10th century, we find on all sides, in church\n and state, in secular and spiritual governments, in science,\n culture and art, the creations of Charlemagne overthrown, and\n a _seculum obscurum_ introduced from which amid great oppression\n and savagery, emerge the conditions, earnests and germs of a new\n golden age.--A second period is marked out, in quite a different\n fashion, by the age of Pope Boniface VIII. or the beginning of\n the 14th century. Up to this time =Germany= stood distinctly in\n the foreground both of the history of the world and of the church;\n but the unhappy conflict of Boniface with Philip the Fair of\n France placed the papacy at the mercy of French policy, and so\n henceforth in all the movements of Church history =France= stands\n in the front. The pontificate of Boniface forms a turning point\n also for the historical development within the church itself. The\n most vast and influential products of medi\u00e6val ecclesiasticism\n are the papacy, monasticism and scholasticism. The period before\n Boniface is characterized by the growth and flourishing of these;\n the period after Boniface by their decay and deterioration.\n The reformatory current, too, which permeated the whole of\n the Middle Ages, has in each of these two periods its own\n distinctive character. Before Boniface those representatives of\n the dominant ecclesiastical system were themselves inspired by a\n powerful reformatory spirit working its way up from the great and\n widespread depravation of the 10th century, accompanied, however,\n by a hierarchical lust of power far beyond the limits justifiable\n on evangelical principles. The evangelical reformatory endeavours\n again directed against those representatives of ecclesiasticism\n are still relatively few and isolated and find but a slight echo,\n while as their caricature we see alongside of them heretical\n extravagances which have scarcely ever had their like in history.\n Toward the end of the first period, however, this relation\n begins to be reversed. The papacy, monasticism and scholasticism\n becoming more and more deteriorated are the patrons of every sort\n of deterioration within the church. The revolutionary heretical\n movement is indeed overcome, but all the more powerfully,\n generally and variedly does the evangelical reformatory movement,\n though still always burdened with much that was confused and\n immature, assert itself independently of and over against those\n ecclesiastical principalities, without being able, however,\n to exert upon them any abiding influence.--Thus our phase of\n development is divided into three periods: the period from the\n 4th to the 9th cent. (till A.D. 911); the period from the 10th\n to the 13th cent. (A.D. 911-1294); and the period of the 14th\n and 15th cent. (A.D. 1294-1517).\n\n\n\n\n FIRST SECTION.\n\n HISTORY OF THE GERMAN-ROMAN CHURCH FROM THE 4TH TO\n THE 9TH CENTURY (DOWN TO A.D. 911).\n\n\n\n\n I. Founding, Spread, and Limitation of the German Church.[199]\n\n\n \u00a7 75. CHRISTIANITY AND THE GERMANS.\n\n In the pre-German age Europe was for the most part inhabited by\nCeltic races. In Britain, Spain and Gaul, however, these were subjugated\nby the Roman forces and Romanized, whereas in northern, eastern and\nmiddle Europe they were oppressed, exterminated or Germanized by the\nGermans. In its victorious march through Europe, Christianity met with\nCeltic races of unmixed nationality only in Ireland and Scotland, for\neven among the neighbouring Britons the Celtic nationality was already\nblended with the Roman. Only in a very restricted field, therefore,\ncould the church first of all develop itself according to the Celtic\nmode of culture. But here, with a wonderful measure of independence,\nmissionary operations were so energetically prosecuted that for a\nlong time it seemed as if the greater part of the opposite continent\nwith its German population was to be its prey, until at last the Romish\nchurch would be driven out of its own home as well as out of its hopeful\nmission fields (\u00a7 77).--Even in pre-Christian times a second and more\npowerful immigration from the East had begun to pour over Europe. The\nvarious Germanic groups of tribes now presented themselves, followed\nby other warlike races, Huns, Slavs, Magyars, etc., alternately driving\nand being driven. The Germans first came into contact with Christian\nelements in the second half of the 3rd century, and toward the end of\nthe 5th a whole series of powerful German peoples are found professing\nthe Christian faith, and each successive century far down into the\nMiddle Ages brings always new trophies from these nations into the\ntreasure-house of the church. It would certainly be wrong to ascribe\nthese results to a national predisposition of the German churches\nand type of mind for Christianity. This cannot be altogether denied,\nbut it did not predispose the German peoples to Christianity as it\nthen was preached, but was first developed when this by other ways\nand means had found an entrance and only at the Reformation of the\n16th century did it get full expression. For that predisposition was\ndirected to the deepest and innermost sides of Christianity, for which\nthe ecclesiastical institution of the times in its externalism had\nlittle appreciation; and the first task of the German spirit was to\nsecure recognition of this reformatory principle.\n\n \u00a7 75.1. =The Predisposition of the Germans for\n Christianity.=--What we have been accustomed to hear about\n this subject is in part greatly exaggerated, in part sought\n for where its proper germ does not lie. The German mythology\n may indeed conceal many deep thoughts under the garb of legendary\n poetry which have some relation to Christian truth and afford\n evidence of the religious needs, the speculative gifts and the\n characteristic profundity of German thought, but this scarcely\n in a larger measure than in the Greek myths, philosophemes and\n mysteries.[200] Much more suggestive of a predisposition to\n Christianity than such bright spots in the mythological system\n of the Germans are the special and distinguishing characteristics\n of the life of the German people. The fidelity of the vassal to\n his lord, transferred to Christ the heavenly king, constitutes\n the special core of Christianity. Besides, closely connected\n therewith, the love of battle and faithfulness in battle for\n and with the hereditary or elected chief found a parallel in\n the struggles and victories of the Christian life. Further,\n the Germans\u2019 noble love of freedom, sanctified by the Gospel,\n afforded form and expression for the glorious freedom of the\n children of God. And finally, the spirituality of the Germans\u2019\n worship, praised even by Tacitus, who says that they _nec\n cohibere parietibus Deos, neque in ullam humani oris speciem\n adsimulare, ex magnitudine c\u0153lestium arbitrantur_, predisposed\n them in favour of the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth.\n\n \u00a7 75.2. What is of most significance, however, for understanding\n the almost unopposed =Adoption of Christianity= by so many German\n races is the slight hold that their heathen religion had upon\n them at that time. It is essentially characteristic of heathenism\n as the religion of nature that it can flourish only on its\n native soil. German paganism, however, had been uprooted by its\n transplantation to European soil and had, amid the movements of\n peoples during the first centuries after their migration, never\n quite struck root in the new ground. In the later centuries,\n when it had long enough time for doing so, _e.g._ among the\n Frisians, Saxons, Danes, it offered an incomparably more resolute\n resistance. Again, rapid conversion will be furthered or hindered\n according as the new home is one where already from Roman times\n Christian institutions existed or even had existed, or is one\n where the old primitive heathenism still prevailed. Only in\n the latter case could German paganism develop its full power\n and strike its roots deeply and feel at home upon the new soil;\n whereas in the other case, the higher culture and spiritual\n power of Christianity, even where it had been vanquished by\n the barbarians, disturbed the even tenour and na\u00efvete of the\n genuinely pagan course of development. The circumstance also\n deserves mention, that the marriage of heathen princes with\n Christian princesses frequently secured their conversion along\n with that of their subjects. In the narrower circles of the home,\n the family, the tribe, innumerable instances of the same sort of\n thing repeatedly occurred. There is something specially Germanic,\n in the prominent position which German feeling had assigned to\n the wife: _Inesse quin etiam_, says Tacitus, _sanctum aliquid\n et providum putant; nec aut consilia earum adspernantur, aut\n responsa negligunt_.[201]\n\n \u00a7 75.3. =Mode of Conversion in the Church of these Times.=--Apart\n from the too frequent practice of Christian rulers to secure\n conversions by the sword, baptism and conversion were commonly\n regarded as an _opus operatum_, and whole crowds of heathens\n without any knowledge of saving truth, with no real change of\n heart and mind, were received into the church by baptism. No one\n can approve this. But it must be admitted that only in this way\n could striking and rapid results have been reached; that indeed\n in the stage of childhood, in which the Germans then were, it\n had a certain measure of justification. By the history even of\n its attack upon German paganism an entirely different career of\n conflict and victory was marked out to Christianity than that\n through which it had to pass in its conquests of Gr\u00e6co-Roman\n paganism. In this latter case it had to confront a high form of\n civilization which had outlived its powers and had lost itself\n in its own perplexities, which for a thousand years had proved\n in its civilization and history a \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd.\n All this was wanting to the Germans. If the Roman world might\n be compared to a proselyte who in ripe, well proved and much\n experienced maturity receives baptism, the conversion of the\n Germans may be compared to the baptism of children.--Gregory the\n Great had at first directed the missionaries to the Anglo-Saxons\n (\u00a7 77, 4) to destroy the idol temples of converted heathens. But\n further reflection convinced him that it was better to transform\n them into Christian churches, and now he laid it down as a maxim\n in Roman Catholic missions that pagan forms of worship and places\n of worship which were capable of modification to Christian uses\n should be carefully preserved and respected: \u201c_Nam duris mentibus\n simul omnia abscindere impossibile esse dubium non est, quia et\n is qui summum locum ascendere nititur, gradibus vel passibus,\n non autem saltibus, elevatur._\u201d It was a fateful, two-edged word,\n which led Catholic missions to a brilliant outward success, but\n has saturated the Catholic worship and life with a pagan leaven,\n which works in it powerfully down to the present day.\n\n\n \u00a7 76. THE VICTORY OF CATHOLICISM OVER ARIANISM.[202]\n\n The first conversions of multitudes of the German races occurred\nat the time when Arianism had reached its climax in the Roman empire.\nInternal disturbances and external pressure compelled a portion of\nthe Goths in the second half of the fourth century to throw themselves\ninto the arms of the East Roman empire and to purchase its protection\nby the adoption of Arian Christianity. The missionary zeal of the\nnational clergy, with bishop Ulfilas at their head, though we cannot\nindicate particularly his methods, spread Arianism in a short time\nover a multitude of the German nationalities. Down to the end of\nthe fifth century Arianism was professed by the larger portion of\nthe German world, by Visigoths and Ostrogoths, by Vandals, Suevi and\nBurgundians, by the Rugians and Herulians, by the Longobards, etc. And\nas the early friendly relations to the Roman empire had given Arianism\na foundation among those peoples, so the later hostile relations to the\nRoman empire now turned Catholic made them cling tenaciously to their\nArian heresy. Arianism had more and more assumed the character of a\nnational German Christianity, and it almost seemed as if the whole\nGerman world, and with it the universal history of the future, were\nits secure prey. But a quick end was made of these expectations by\nthe conversion of one of its chief branches to Catholicism. The Franks\nhad from the first pursued a policy which was directed rather to\nthe strengthening of the future of its brother tribes, than to the\naccelerating of the downfall of the Roman empire. This policy led them\nto embrace Catholicism. Trusting to the protection of the Catholic\nChristians\u2019 God and the sympathies of the whole Catholic West, the\nFrankish rulers took advantage of the call to suppress heresy and\nconquer heretics\u2019 lands. To renounce heresy so as to find occasion for\nattacking the territories of heretics, was probably with them a matter\nof political necessity.\n\n \u00a7 76.1. =The Goths in the lands of the Danube.=--From the middle\n of the 3rd century Christianity had found an entrance among the\n Goths through Roman prisoners of war. At the Council of Nic\u00e6a\n in A.D. 325 there was present a Gothic bishop Theophilus. From\n A.D. 348 the scion of an imprisoned Cappadocian Christian family,\n =Ulfilas=[203] by name, wrought as bishop among the Visigoths,\n already attached to the Arian confession, with so much zeal and\n success for the spread of Christianity that the hatred of the\n pagans was roused to such a pitch that in A.D. 355 they began\n a bloody persecution of the Christians. With a great part of the\n Gothic Christians Ulfilas fled over the Danube, and the emperor\n Constantius, who honoured him as a second Moses, assigned him\n a dwelling-place in Mount H\u00e6mus. Ulfilas continued his work for\n thirty-three years with many tokens of blessing. In order that\n the Goths might have access to the original fount of saving\n knowledge, he translated the Holy Scriptures into their language,\n for which he invented a written character of his own. He died\n in A.D. 381. A short biography of the Apostle of the Goths\n was written by his disciple Auxentius, bishop of Dorostorus\n in Silistria, which gives an account at first hand of his life\n and doctrine. But not all Gothic Christians were expatriated\n with Ulfilas. Those who remained behind were a leaven which\n ever continued to expand and spread. So Athanaric, king of the\n Thervingians, about A.D. 370, started a new and cruel persecution\n against them. Soon afterwards a rebellion broke out among the\n pagan Thervingians. At the head of the malcontents was Frithigern.\n He was subdued, but got aid from the emperor Valens and in\n gratitude for the help given adopted the Arian religion of\n the emperor. This was the first conversion in multitude among\n the Goths. A second followed not long after. The Huns had rushed\n down like a whirlwind in A.D. 375 and destroyed the empire of the\n Ostrogoths. A part of these were obliged to join the Huns; while\n another fled into the country of the Thervingians. These last\n again were driven before the conquerors and crossed the Danube\n under Frithigern and Alaviv, where in A.D. 376 Valens gave\n them a settlement on condition that they should profess Arian\n Christianity. But this friendship did not last long, and Valens\n fell in A.D. 378 fighting against them. Theodosius, the restorer\n of the Catholic faith in the Roman empire, made peace with them.\n They retained, however, their Arian Confession, which spread\n from them in a way not yet explained to the Ostrogoths and other\n related tribes. Chrysostom started a Catholic mission among them,\n but it was stopped at his death.\n\n \u00a7 76.2. =The Visigoths in Gaul and Spain.=--The death of\n Theodosius in A.D. 395 and the partition of his empire gave\n the signal to the Visigoths to attempt securing for themselves\n more room. Alaric devastated Greece, broke in upon Italy in\n search of prey and plundered Rome in A.D. 410. His successor\n Athaulf descended upon southern Gaul, and Wallia founded there\n a Visigoth empire with Toulouse for its capital, which under\n Euric, who died in A.D. 483, reached the summit of its glory.\n Euric extended his kingdom in Gaul, and in A.D. 475, conquered\n the most of Spain. He sought to strengthen his government by\n having one system of law and one religion, but in his projected\n conversion of his subjects to Arianism, he met with unexpected\n opposition, which he sought in vain to put down by a severe\n persecution of the Catholics. The Roman population and the\n Catholic bishops longed for a Catholic government and placed\n their hopes in the Frankish king Clovis who had been converted\n in A.D. 496. As saviour and avenger of the Catholic faith Clovis\n completely destroyed the Visigoth power on this side the Pyrenees\n in a battle at Vougl\u00e9 near Poitiers in A.D. 507. In Spain,\n however, the Visigoths retained their power and persisted in\n their efforts to convert all to the Arian faith. Under the\n violent Leovigild these efforts culminated in A.D. 585 in a\n cruel persecution. His son and successor Reccared, however,\n saw the vanity and danger of this policy and took the opposite\n course. At the third Synod of Toledo in A.D. 589 he adopted the\n Catholic faith and with the co-operation of the able metropolitan\n Leander of Seville secured complete ascendency for Catholicism\n throughout the empire. Under the later kings the Visigoth power\n sank lower and lower amid the treacheries, murders and revolts of\n internal factions, and in A.D. 711 the last king of the Visigoths,\n Roderick, after a bloody fight at Xeres de la Frontera yielded to\n the Saracens who had rushed down from Africa upon Spain.\n\n \u00a7 76.3. =The Vandals in Africa.=--Early in the 5th century\n the Vandals, who were even then Arian Christians, combining\n with the Alani and Suevi, made a descent from Pannonia upon\n Gaul in A.D. 406 and from thence upon Spain in A.D. 409, and\n made dreadful havoc of these rich and fertile lands. In A.D. 428\n the Roman proconsul of Africa, Boniface, unjustly accused of\n treason by the Roman government, in his straits called in the\n aid of the Vandals. Their king Genseric went in A.D. 429 with\n 50,000 men. Boniface, however, was meanwhile reconciled with\n his government and did all in his power to get the barbarians\n to retire. But all in vain. Genseric conquered Africa and founded\n there a powerful Vandal empire. In A.D. 455 he even made an\n attack upon Rome, which was plundered by his hordes for fourteen\n days. In order to prevent any sympathy being shown by Africa\n for Rome he determined to secure throughout his empire uniform\n profession of the Arian creed, and in prosecuting this purpose\n during his fifty years\u2019 reign exercised continual cruelties.\n He died in A.D. 477. But the African Catholics were faithful to\n their creed unto death and went forth to martyrdom in a spirit\n worthy of their ancestors of the 2nd or 3rd centuries. His\n son Hunneric allowed them only a short respite and began again\n in A.D. 483 the bloody work. He died in A.D. 484. Under his\n successor Guntamund [Gunthamund], who died in A.D. 496, a stop\n was put to the persecution; but Thrasamund [Thrasimund], who died\n in A.D. 523, again adopted bloody measures. Hilderic, who died\n in A.D. 530, a man of mild and generous temper, and the son of\n a Catholic mother, openly favoured the Catholics. Gelimer, a\n great-grandson of Genseric, put himself at the head of the Arians\n whom Hilderic\u2019s catholic sympathies had alienated, took Hilderic\n prisoner and had him executed. But before he could carry out the\n intended persecution, Justinian\u2019s general Belisarius marched into\n Africa, annihilated the Vandal army in a battle near Tricameron\n in A.D. 533, and overthrew the Vandal empire.[204]\n\n \u00a7 76.4. =The Suevi= were still heathens when they entered Spain\n with the Vandals in A.D. 409. Here under their king Rechiar they\n adopted the Catholic faith. But Remismund to please the Visigoths\n went over to Arianism in A.D. 465 with the whole people. Carraric,\n who thought he owed the cure of his son to the relics of Martin\n of Tours, passed over again to Catholicism in A.D. 550. With\n the co-operation of Martin, metropolitan of Braga, he converted\n his people, and a Provincial Synod at Braga in A.D. 563 under\n Theodimir I. completed the work. The empire of the Suevi was\n destroyed by Leovigild king of the Visigoths, in A.D. 585.\n\n \u00a7 76.5. =The Burgundians= carried on by the irresistible advance\n of Vandals, Suevi and Alani from their home on the Main and the\n Neckar, where they had adopted the Catholic faith, founded an\n independent kingdom in the Jura district. Here they came into\n contact with the Visigoths and for the most part fell away to\n Arianism. Of Gundiac\u2019s four sons, who divided the empire among\n them, only Chilperic II., the father of Clotilda, remained\n Catholic. By fratricide his brother Gundobald secured complete\n sovereignty. The bishop Avitus of Vienne (\u00a7 53, 5), however,\n vigorously opposed Arianism, and to secure its suppression called\n a Council at Epaon in A.D. 517, the decisions of which were\n recognised by Sigismund, Gundobald\u2019s son, and were made valid\n throughout the empire. But even this did not satisfy Clotilda,\n the wife of the Frankish king Clovis, as an atonement for her\n father\u2019s death. Her sons, urged by their mother to prove avengers\n of her father\u2019s blood, made an end of the Burgundian empire in\n A.D. 534.\n\n \u00a7 76.6. =The Rugians=, in combination with the Herulians,\n Scyrians and Turcellingians, had founded an independent kingdom\n in the Old Roman Noricum, the Lower Austria of to-day. Arianism\n had been introduced among them by the Goths but without the\n complete expulsion of paganism. The Romans among them attached to\n Catholicism were sorely oppressed. But from A.D. 454, =Severinus=\n wrought among them like a messenger from heaven to bless, help\n and comfort the heavily burdened. He died in A.D. 482. Even from\n the barbarians he won the deepest reverence, and over heathens\n and Arians he had an almost magical power. He prophesied to the\n Scyrian Odoacer his future greatness. This prince in A.D. 476\n put an end to the West Roman empire and ruled ably and wisely\n as king of Italy for seventeen years. He put an end too to Arian\n fanaticism in Rugiland in A.D. 487 by overthrowing the empire of\n the Rugians. But in A.D. 489 the Ostrogoth Theodoric came down\n upon Italy, conquered Ravenna after a three years\u2019 siege, took\n Odoacer prisoner and in a wild drunken revel had him put to death\n in A.D. 493.\n\n \u00a7 76.7. =The Ostrogoths= when they conquered Italy had already\n for a long time been Arians, but were free from that fanaticism\n which so often characterized German Arianism. Theodoric granted\n full liberty to Catholicism, spared, protected and prized Roman\n culture, in all which certainly his famous minister Cassiodorus\n (\u00a7 47, 23) had no small share. This liberal-minded tolerance was\n indeed made easy to the king by the thirty-five years\u2019 schism of\n that time (\u00a7 52, 5), which prevented any suspicions of danger to\n the state from the combination of Roman and Byzantine Catholics.\n And in fact, when this schism was healed in A.D. 519, Theodoric\n began to interest himself more in Arianism and to give way\n to such suspicions. He died in A.D. 526. The confusions that\n followed his death were taken advantage of by the emperor\n Justinian for the reconquest of Italy. His general Narses\n annihilated the last remnants of the Ostrogoth power in A.D. 554.\n The Byzantine government again rose upon the ruins of the Goths,\n and in A.D. 567 established the exarchate with Ravenna as its\n capital. For the time being Arianism was completely destroyed\n in Italy.[205]\n\n \u00a7 76.8. =The Longobards in Italy.=--In A.D. 569 the Longobards\n under Alboin made a descent upon Italy from the lands of the\n Danube, and conquered what has been called Lombardy after them,\n with its capital Ticinum, now Pavia. His successors extended\n their conquests farther south, till at last only the farthest\n point of Italy, the duchies of Naples, Rome and Perugia, Ravenna\n with its subject cities and Venice, acknowledged Byzantine rule.\n Excited by desire of plunder and political jealousy, the Arian\n Longobards warred incessantly for twenty years with Roman\n culture and Roman Catholicism. But after this first outburst of\n persecution had been stilled, religious indolence won the upper\n hand and the Arian clergy were not roused from their indifference\n to spiritual things by the growing zeal for conversions which\n characterized the Catholic bishops. Pope Gregory the Great,\n A.D. 590-604, devoted himself unweariedly to the task, and was\n powerfully supported by a Bavarian princess, the zealous Catholic\n queen Theodelinde. The Longobards were so enamoured of this\n fair and amiable queen that, when her first husband Anthari was\n murdered in A.D. 590, one year after their marriage, they allowed\n her to choose for herself one of the dukes to be her husband and\n their king. Her choice fell on Agilulf, who indeed himself still\n continued an Arian, but did not prevent the spread of Catholicism\n among his people. Their daughter Gundiberge, married successively\n to two Longobard kings, Ariowald (\u2020 A.D. 636) and Rothari\n (\u2020 A.D. 652) was an equally zealous protectress of the Catholic\n church; and with Rothari\u2019s successor Aribert, brother\u2019s son of\n Theodelinde, who died in A.D. 663, begins the series of Catholic\n rulers of the Longobards.--Continuation, \u00a7 82, 1.\n\n \u00a7 76.9. =The Franks in Gaul.=--When the West Roman empire was\n overthrown by Odoacer in A.D. 476, the Roman authority was still\n for a long time maintained in Gaul by the proconsul Syagrius.\n But the Merovingian Clovis, A.D. 481-511, put an end to it by\n the battle of Soissons in A.D. 486. In A.D. 493 he married the\n Burgundian princess Clotilda, and she, a zealous Catholic, used\n every effort to convert her pagan husband. The national pride\n of the Frank resisted long, but she got permission to have her\n firstborn son baptized. The boy, however, died in his baptismal\n robes, and Clovis regarded this as a punishment from his gods.\n Nevertheless on the birth of his second son he was unable to\n resist the entreaties of his beloved wife. He too sickened after\n his baptism; but when contrary to expectation he recovered amid\n the fervent prayers of the mother, the heathen father confessed\n that prayer to the Christian\u2019s God is more powerful than Woden\u2019s\n vengeance. He remembered this when threatened in A.D. 496 at\n Tolbiac with loss of the battle, of his life and of his empire\n in the war with the Alemanni. Prayer to the national gods had\n proved fruitless. He now turned in prayer to the God of the\n Christians, promising to own allegiance to Him, if He should\n get the victory. The fortune of battle soon turned. The army and\n kingdom of the Alemanni were destroyed. At his baptism at Rheims\n on Christmas Eve, A.D. 496, Archbishop Remigius addressed him\n thus: \u201cBend thy neck, proud Sigamber; adore what thou hast burnt,\n burn what thou hast adored!\u201d The later tradition, first reported\n by Hincmar of Rheims in the 9th century, relates that when the\n church officer with the anointing oil could not get forward\n because of the crowd, in answer to Remigius\u2019 prayer a white dove\n brought an oil flask from heaven, out of which all the kings of\n the Franks from that day have been anointed. The conversion of\n Clovis, soon followed by that of the nobles and the people, seems\n really to have been a matter of conviction and genuine according\n to the measure of his knowledge of God. He made a bargain with\n the Christian\u2019s God and fulfilled the obligations under which\n he had placed himself. Of an inner change of heart we can indeed\n find no trace. There was, however, no mention of that in his\n bargain. Just after his conversion he commits the most atrocious\n acts of faithlessness, treachery and secret murder. The Catholic\n clergy of the whole West nevertheless celebrated in him a second\n Constantine, called of God as avenger upon heathenism and Arian\n heresy, and asked of him nothing more, seeing in this the task\n which providence had assigned him. The conversion of Clovis was\n indeed in every respect an occurrence of the greatest moment.\n The rude Arianism of the Germans, incapable of culture, received\n here its deathblow. The civilization and remnants of culture of\n the ancient world found in the Catholic church its only suitable\n vehicle for introduction into the German world; and now the\n Franks were at the head of it and laid the foundation of a new\n universal empire which would for centuries form the central\n point of universal history. On the work of Friddin [Fridolin]\n and Columbanus in the land of the Franks, see \u00a7 77, 7.\n\n\n \u00a7 77. VICTORY OF THE ROMISH OVER THE OLD BRITISH CHURCH.[206]\n\n According to an ancient but more than doubtful tradition a British\nking Lucius about the middle of the 2nd century is said to have asked\nChristian missionaries of the Roman bishop Eleutherus and by them to\nhave been converted along with his people. This, however, is certain,\nthat at the end of the 3rd century (\u00a7 22, 6) Christianity had taken\nroot in Roman Britain, probably through intercourse with the Romans.\nDown to the Anglo-Saxon invasion in A.D. 449, the British church\ncertainly kept up regular communication with that of the continent,\nespecially with Gaul. From that time, being driven back into North\nand South Wales, it was completely isolated from the continental church;\nbut all the more successfully it spread itself out among its neighbours\nin the allied tribes of Ireland and Scotland, among the former through\nPatrick, the Apostle of the Irish, among the latter by Columba, the\nApostle of the Scots, and followed a thoroughly independent course of\ndevelopment. When one hundred and fifty years later, in A.D. 596 the\nlong interrupted intercourse with Rome was again renewed by a Romish\nmission to the Anglo-Saxons, several divergences from Roman practice\nwere discovered among the Britons in respect of worship, constitution\nand discipline. Rome insisted that these should be corrected, but\nthe Britons insisted on retaining them and repudiated the pretensions\nof the Romish hierarchy. The keen struggle which therefore arose,\nbeginning amid circumstances that promised a brilliant success to\nthe British church, ended with complete submission to Rome. The\nbattle-field was then transferred to Germany, and there too in spite\nof the resolute resistance of their apostles the contest concluded\nwith the same result (\u00a7 78). The struggle was not merely one of highly\ntragic interest but of incomparable importance for the history of\nEurope. For had the result been, as for a time it seemed likely that\nit would be, in favour of the old British church, not only England but\nalso all Germany would have taken up a decidedly anti-papal attitude,\nand not only the ecclesiastical but also the political history of\nthe Middle Ages would have most likely been led into an altogether\ndifferent course.\n\n \u00a7 77.1. =The Conversion of the Irish.=--Among the Celtic\n inhabitants of the island of Ireland there were some individual\n Christians from the beginning of the 5th century. The mission\n of a Roman deacon Palladius in A.D. 431 was without result. But\n in the following year, A.D. 432, the true apostle of the Irish,\n =Patrick=, with twenty-four companions, stept upon the shore of\n the island. The only reliable source of information about his\n life and work is an autobiography which he left behind him,\n _Confessiones_. According to it he was grandson of a presbyter\n and son of a deacon residing at Banava, probably in Britain, not\n likely in Gaul. In his sixteenth year he was taken to Ireland by\n Irish pirates and sold to an Irish chief whose flocks he tended\n for six years. After his escape by flight the love of Christ\n which glowed within his heart gave him no rest and his dreams\n urged him to bring the glorious liberty of the children of God\n to those who so long kept him bound under hard slavery. Familiar\n with the language and the customs of the country, he gathered the\n people by beat of drum into an open field and told them of the\n sufferings of Christ for man\u2019s salvation. The Druids, priests\n of the Celts, withstood him vigorously, but his attractive and\n awe-inspiring personality gained the victory over them. Without\n a drop of martyr\u2019s blood Ireland was converted in a few years,\n and was thickly strewn with churches and monasteries. Patrick\n himself had his residence at Macha, round which the town of\n Armagh, afterwards the ecclesiastical metropolis, sprang up. He\n died about A.D. 465, and left the island church in a flourishing\n condition. The numerous monasteries, in which calm piety\n flourished along with diligent study of Scripture and from which\n many teachers and missionaries went forth, won for the land the\n name of _Insula Sanctorum_. Only after the robber raids of the\n Danes in the 9th century did the glory of the Irish monasteries\n begin to fade.[207]\n\n \u00a7 77.2. =The Mission to Scotland.=--A Briton, Ninian, educated\n at Rome, wrought, about A.D. 430, among the Celtic =Picts= and\n =Scots= in Scotland or Caledonia. But those converted by him fell\n back into paganism after his death. The true Apostle of Scotland\n was the Irishman =Columba=. In A.D. 563 he settled with twelve\n disciples on the small Hebridean island Hy. Its common name,\n Iona, seems to have originated by a clerical error from Ioua,\n and was then regarded as the Hebrew equivalent of Columba, a dove.\n Icolmkill means Columba\u2019s cell. Here he founded a monastery and\n a church, and converted from this centre all Caledonia. Although\n to the last only a presbyter and abbot of this monastery, he had\n all the authority of an apostle over the Scottish church and its\n bishops, a position that was maintained by successive abbots of\n Iona. He died in A.D. 597. The numerous monasteries founded by\n him vied with the Irish in learning, piety and missionary zeal.\n The original monastery of Iona flourished in a superlative\n degree.[208]\n\n \u00a7 77.3. =The Peculiarities of the Celtic Church.=--In the\n Anglo-Saxon struggle the following were the main points at issue.\n\n 1. On the part of Rome it was demanded that they should submit\n to the archiepiscopal jurisdiction instituted by the pope,\n which the British refused as an unrighteous assumption.\n\n 2. The British had an =Easter Canon= different from that\n of the Romish church. They were indeed nothing else than\n Quartodecimans, although they like these in ignorance\n referred to the Johannine tradition (\u00a7 34, 2), but celebrated\n their Easter always on a Sunday, the settling of which they\n decided according to an 84 years\u2019 cycle of the moon, after\n Rome had adopted a cycle of 19 years (\u00a7 56, 3).\n\n 3. The Celtic clergy had also a different =Tonsure= from the\n Roman _Tonsura Petri_ which seems to have been the Greek\n _Tonsura Pauli_ (\u00a7 45, 1), although the zealous advocate of\n the Roman customs, Ceolfrid, abbot of Jarrow, in a letter\n to Naitan, king of the Picts, derives it from Simon Magus.\n\n 4. Besides this there was also the question of the Marriage\n of Priests, which indeed the popish Anglo-Saxon Archbishop\n Augustine declared himself at first willing to allow to the\n British, which, however, was subsequently so passionately\n denounced by Boniface as _fornicatio_ and _adulterium_.\n\n 5. If, further, according to Bede\u2019s statement, besides their\n divergent views about Easter, the British _et alia plurima\n imitati ecclesiastic\u00e6 contraria faciebant_, this certainly\n cannot be understood of doctrinal divergences, but\n only of different forms of constitution and worship,\n or ecclesiastical habits and customs, as might be well\n expected in churches that had been completely separated\n since A.D. 449. We need only think, _e.g._, of the progress\n made by the idea of the papal primacy (\u00a7 46, 7-10), the\n consolidation and reconstruction of monasticism under\n Benedict (\u00a7 85), the codification of Roman canon law by\n Dionysius Exiguus (\u00a7 43, 3), the modification of the idea\n of penance since Leo the Great (\u00a7 61, 1) and the development\n of the doctrine of the mass down to Gregory the Great\n (\u00a7 58, 3; 59, 6). The most considerable peculiarity of\n constitution in the Celtic church seems to have been that\n above referred to in placing the abbots of the principal\n monasteries at the head of the hierarchy. Only in one\n passage (Bede, III. 19) is there mention of ecclesiastical\n doctrine: In A.D. 640 Pope John IV. addressed a conciliatory\n letter to the Scots in which he warns them against the\n Pelagian heresy, \u201c_quam apud eos revivescere didicerat_.\u201d\n\n When then we turn our attention to the Celtic church planted on\n the continent at a later period, it is specially Columbanus\u2019 view\n of Easter that is regarded in France as heretical. Often and loud\n as Boniface lifted up his voice against the horrible heresies\n of British, Irish and Scotch intruders, it is found at last that\n these consist in the same or similar divergences as those of the\n Anglo-Saxons. Not insisting upon the law of celibacy, opposition\n to the Roman primacy, the Romish tradition and the Romish canon\n law, especially the ever-increasing strictness of the Roman\n marriage laws (\u00a7 61, 2), more simple modes of administering the\n sacraments and conducting public worship, even in unconsecrated\n places in forests and fields,--these and such like were the\n heresies complained of.--As concerns the _pro_ and _con._ of\n the evangelical purity of the ancient British Christianity, so\n highly praised by Ebrard, one occupying an impartial historical\n standpoint is justified in expecting that as all the good\n development so also all the bad development which had taken\n firm root in the common thought and feeling of the church down\n to the middle of the 5th century, would not have been uprooted\n from the church of Patrick and Columba, so also in the 7th\n century it would be still prevalent there. And this expectation\n is in general confirmed, so far as our information goes about\n all which was not expressly imported from Rome into the British\n church. If we deduct the by no means insignificant amount of\n unevangelical corruption which was first introduced into the\n Romish church during the period between Leo the Great and Gregory\n the Great, A.D. 440-604, partly by exaggerating and adorning\n elements previously there, partly by bringing in wholly new\n elements of ecclesiastical credulity, superstition and mistaken\n faith, there still remains for the Celtic church standing outside\n of this process of deterioration a relatively purer doctrine. Yet\n the Christianity that remains is by no means free of mixture from\n unevangelical elements as Jonas of Bobbio himself shows in his\n biography of his teacher Columbanus. But the more embittered the\n conflict between the British and the Romish churches became over\n matters of constitution and worship, the more did differences\n in faith and life, which had been overlooked at first, assume\n serious proportions, and supported by a careful study of\n Scripture, led to greater evangelical freedom and purity on\n the side of the British. This is thoroughly confirmed by Ebrard\u2019s\n numerous quotations from the literature of that period.[209]\n\n \u00a7 77.4. =The Romish Mission to the Anglo-Saxons.=--To protect\n himself against the robber raids of the Picts and Scots, the\n British king Vortigern sought the aid of the Germans inhabiting\n the opposite shores. Two princes of the Jutes, Hengist and Horsa,\n driven from their home, led a horde of Angles and Saxons over\n to Britain in A.D. 449. New hordes kept following those that had\n gone before and after a hundred years the British were driven\n back into the western parts of the island. The incomers founded\n seven kingdoms; at the head of all stood the prince of one of\n the divisions who was called principal king, the Bretwalda. The\n Anglo-Saxons were heathens and the bitter feelings that prevailed\n between them and the ancient Britons prevented the latter\n from carrying on missionary operations among the former. The\n opportunity which the British missed was seized upon by Rome.\n The sight of Anglo-Saxon youths exposed as slaves in the Roman\n market inspired a pious monk, afterwards Pope Gregory I., with\n a desire to evangelize a people of such noble bodily appearance.\n He wished himself to take the work in hand, but was hindered\n by the call to the chair of Peter. He now bought Anglo-Saxon\n youths in order to train them as missionaries to their\n fellow-countrymen. But when soon thereafter the Bretwalda\n Ethelbert of Kent married the Frankish princess Bertha, Gregory\n sent the Roman abbot =Augustine= to England with forty monks in\n A.D. 596. Ethelbert gave them a residence and support in his own\n capital Dorovernum, now Canterbury. At Pentecost the following\n year he received baptism and 10,000 of his subjects followed his\n example. Augustine asked from Gregory further instructions about\n relics, books, etc. The pope sent him what he sought and besides\n the pallium with archiepiscopal rights over the whole Saxon and\n British church. Augustine now demanded of the Britons submission\n to his archiepiscopal authority and that they should work\n together with him for the conversion of the Saxons. But the\n British would do nothing of the sort. A personal interview with\n their chiefs under Augustine\u2019s oak in A.D. 603 was without result.\n At a second conference everything was spoilt by Augustine\u2019s\n prelatic pride in refusing to stand up on the arrival of the\n Britons. Inclined to compliance the Britons had just proposed\n this at the suggestion of a member as a sign. Augustine died\n in A.D. 605. The pope nominated as his successor his previous\n assistant Laurentius. Ethelbert\u2019s heathen son and successor,\n Eadbald, oppressed the missionaries so much that they decided\n to withdraw from the field, in A.D. 616. Only Laurentius delayed\n his retreat in order to make a final attempt at the conversion of\n Eadbald. He was successful. Eadbald was baptized; the fugitives\n returned to their former posts. In the kingdom of Essex Augustine\n had already established Christianity, but a change of government\n had again restored paganism. The gospel, however, soon afterwards\n got entrance into Northumbria, the most powerful of the seven\n kingdoms. King Edwin, the founder of Edinburgh, won the hand of\n the Kentish princess Ethelberga, daughter of Bertha. With her,\n as spiritual adviser of the young queen, went the monk Paulinus,\n A.D. 625. These two persuaded the king and he again persuaded\n his nobles and the priests to embrace Christianity. At a popular\n assembly Paulinus proved the truth of Christianity, and the\n chief priest Coisi, setting at defiance the gods of his fathers,\n flung with his own hand a spear into the nearest idol temple.\n The people thought him mad and looked for Woden\u2019s vengeance.\n When it came not, they obeyed the command of Coisi and burnt\n down the temple, A.D. 627. Paulinus was made bishop of Eboracum,\n now York, which pope Honorius on sending a pallium raised to\n a second metropolitanate. Edwin, however, fell in battle in\n A.D. 633 fighting against Penda, the pagan king of Mercia;\n Paulinus had to flee and the church of Northumbria was almost\n entirely rooted up.[210]\n\n \u00a7 77.5. =Celtic Missions among the Anglo-Saxons.=--The saviour\n of Northumbria was Oswald, A.D. 635-642, the son of a former\n king who had been driven out by Edwin. He had found refuge as\n a fugitive in the monastery of Hy and was there converted to\n Christianity. To restore the church in Northumbria the monks\n sent him one of their number, the amiable Aidan. Oswald acted as\n his interpreter until he acquired the Saxon language. His success\n was unexampled. Oswald founded a religious establishment for him\n on the island of Lindisfarne, and supported by new missionaries\n from Hy, Aidan converted the whole of the northern lands to\n Christianity. Oswald fell in battle against Penda. He was\n succeeded as king and also as Bretwalda by his brother Oswy.\n Irish missionaries joined the missionary monks of Hy, rivalling\n them in their exertions, and by A.D. 660 all the kingdoms of\n the Heptarchy had been converted to Christianity, and down to\n this date all, with the exception of Kent, which alone still\n adhered to the Romish church, belonged to the ancient British\n communion.[211]\n\n \u00a7 77.6. =The Celtic Element Driven out of the Anglo-Saxon\n Church.=--Oswy perceived the political danger attending the\n continuance of such ecclesiastical disputes. He succeeded in\n convincing also his neighbour kings of the need of ecclesiastical\n uniformity. The only question was as to which of the two should\n be recognised. The choice fell upon the Romish. Oswy himself\n most decidedly preferred it. His wife Eanfled, Edwin\u2019s daughter,\n was a zealous partisan of the Romish church, and on her side\n stood a man of extraordinary power, prudence and persistence, the\n abbot Wilfrid, a native Northumbrian, trained in the monastery of\n Lindisfarne. He had, however, visited Rome, and since then used\n all his eloquence and skill in intrigue in order to lay all\n England at the feet of the pope. The queen and the abbot wrought\n together upon the Bretwalda, and he in his turn upon the other\n princes. To these personal influences were added others of a\n more general kind: the preference for things foreign over those\n of home growth, the brilliancy and preponderating weight of the\n Romish church, and above all, the gulf, not yet by any means\n bridged over, between the Saxons and the British. When secret\n negociations toward the desired end had been carried out, Oswy\n called a general Synod at the nunnery of Streoneshalch, now\n Whitby, _Synodus Pharensis_, A.D. 664. Here all the civil and\n ecclesiastical notabilities of the Heptarchy were assembled.\n The chief speaker on the Roman side was Wilfrid, on the Celtic\n side bishop Colman of Lindisfarne. The observance of Easter was\n the first subject of discussion. Wilfrid referred to the Apostle\n Peter, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter, etc. Then Oswy\n asked Colman whether it was true that the Lord had said so to\n Peter. Colman could not deny it, and Oswy declared that he would\n follow him who had the power to open for them the gates of heaven.\n And so the question was settled. Oswy as Bretwalda carried out\n with energy the decisions of the Council, and within a few weeks\n the scissors had completed the conversion of the whole Heptarchy\n to the Roman tonsure and the Roman faith.[212]\n\n \u00a7 77.7. =Spread and Overthrow of the British Church on the\n Continent.=--The first Celtic missionary who crossed the channel\n was the Irishman =Fridolin=, about A.D. 500. With several\n companions he settled near Poitiers in Aquitaine which was\n then under the Visigoths, converted the Arian bishop of that\n place together with his congregation to trinitarian orthodoxy,\n and, under the protection of Clovis, who had meanwhile, A.D. 507,\n overthrown the Visigoth power in Gaul, founded churches and\n monasteries. Afterwards he wrought among the heathen Alemanni in\n Switzerland (\u00a7 78, 1). We have fuller and more reliable accounts\n of Columba the younger, usually called =Columbanus=, an Irishman\n by birth, who, in A.D. 590, with twelve zealous companions, went\n forth from the British monastery of Bangor in Co. Down, Ireland,\n and settled among the Vosges mountains. Here they founded the\n monastery of Luxovium, now Luxeuil, as centre with many others\n affiliated to it. They cultivated the wilderness and wrought\n laboriously in restoring church discipline and order in a region\n that had been long spiritually neglected. But their strict\n adherence to the British mode of observing Easter caused offence.\n The severe moral discipline which they enjoined was galling to\n the careless Burgundian clergy, and the aged Brunehilda swore\n to compass their death and destruction, because of the influence\n adverse to her authority which they exercised upon her grandson,\n the young king Theodoric II. Thus it happened that in A.D. 610,\n after twenty years\u2019 labours, they were driven away. They turned\n then to Switzerland (\u00a7 78, 1). But when persecuted here also,\n Columbanus with his followers migrated to Italy, about A.D. 612,\n where, under Agilulf\u2019s protection (\u00a7 76, 8), he founded the\n celebrated monastery of Bobbio and contended against Arianism.\n The _Regula Columbani_ extant in several MSS. constitutes a\n written guide to Christian piety and breathes a free evangelical\n spirit, while the annexed _Regula c\u0153nobialis fratrum de Hibernia_,\n also ascribed to him, bears a rigoristic ascetic character,\n enjoining frequent flagellations. Columbanus died in A.D. 615.\n The monks of his order joined the Benedictines in the 9th century.\n On his personal relation to the Romish chair during his residence\n in Gaul and Italy we get some information from three of his\n epistles still extant. In the first he asks Gregory the Great\n for an explanation of the Gallic observance of Easter, and in\n the second he asks Boniface IV. to confirm his old British mode\n of reckoning Easter. In both he recognises the pope as occupier\n of the chair of Peter, and in the second greets him as head of\n all the churches of Europe and describes the Roman church as the\n chief seat of the orthodox faith. In the third, on the other hand,\n he demands of the pope in firm terms an account of his own faith\n and that of the Roman church. He did so in consequence of a\n report having reached him, probably through the mention by the\n 5th \u0153cum. Council (\u00a7 52, 6) of a schism between Rome and Northern\n Italy, that the Roman chair had fallen into the heresies of\n Eutyches and Nestorius.--The ablest of Columbanus\u2019 followers\n was Gallus or St. Gall. He remained in Switzerland and had his\n faithfulness rewarded by rich success. After Columbanus had been\n expelled from France traces of Celtic ecclesiastical institutions\n may indeed for a considerable time have lingered on among his\n Frankish scholars and friends animated by the missionary zeal\n of their master. For from their midst as it would seem proceeded\n most of those Frankish missionaries who carried the gospel in the\n 7th century to the German lands (\u00a7 78). But from the time of the\n overthrow of the old Celtic ecclesiastical system at the Synod of\n Streoneshalch in A.D. 664, whole troops of its adherents, British,\n Irish, Scotch and Anglo-Saxons, crossed the channel to convert\n Germany. With very few exceptions, only the names of these men,\n and for the most part not even these, have come down to us. But\n their zeal and success are witnessed to by the fact that even in\n the beginning of the 8th century throughout all the district of\n the Rhine, as well as Hesse, Thuringia, Bavaria and Alemannia\n we find a network of flourishing churches bearing the impress\n of Celtic institutions. And the overthrow of this great and\n promising ecclesiastical system, partly by peaceful, partly by\n violent transportation into the Romish church, was the work of\n the Anglo-Saxon Winfrid, whom the Romanists, quite rightly from\n their point of view, honour, under the name of Boniface, as the\n Apostle of Germany (\u00a7 78, 4-8).[213]\n\n \u00a7 77.8. =Overthrow of the Old British System in the Iro-Scottish\n Church.=--After the British Church had lost, in A.D. 664, all\n support in the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy, it could not long maintain\n itself in its own original Celtic home. The Scottish kings\n on political grounds, in order to avoid giving their Saxon\n neighbours an opportunity of gratifying the love of conquest\n under the pretext of zeal for the faith, were obliged to\n assimilate their church organization with that of the Southerns.\n The learned Abbot Adamnan of Hy, when, in A.D. 684, by order\n of his king, he visited the Northumbrian court, professed to\n be there convinced of the correctness of the Romish observance\n of Easter. But when his monks stoutly resisted, he left the\n monastery and went on a missionary tour to Ireland where he\n urged his views so successfully that in A.D. 701 the most of the\n Irish adopted the Roman reckoning. Some years later, in A.D. 710,\n Naitan II., the powerful king of the Picts, asked instructions\n from Abbot Ceolfrid about the superiority of the Romish practice\n regarding Easter and the tonsure, forced his whole people to\n adopt the Romish doctrine and banished the obstinate priests.\n Finally, the Anglo-Saxon Egbert, educated in Ireland, but\n subsequently won over to the Romish church, induced by visions\n and tempests to abandon his projected mission to the heathen\n Frisians (\u00a7 78, 3), and to devote himself to what was regarded\n as the more arduous task of the conversion of the schismatical\n monks of Hy, succeeded in A.D. 716 in so far overcoming their\n obstinacy that they at least gave up their divergent tonsure and\n Easter reckoning. Thereafter the Romanists were satisfied with\n the gradual Romanizing of the whole Celtic regions in the west\n and north. In worship, constitution and discipline all remained\n for a long time as it had been of old. The Roman law of celibacy\n could not win its way. Public worship was conducted and the\n sacraments dispensed in the language of the people and in the\n simple forms of primitive times. Canon law was almost everywhere\n made subordinate to the customs of the national church. Indeed,\n when in A.D. 843, the kingdom of the Picts, where the papacy\n had made most progress, went by inheritance to the Scottish\n king Kenneth, he restored even there the old ecclesiastical\n institutions of their fathers. Malcolm III., who died in\n A.D. 1093, was the first of the Scottish kings to begin the\n complete, thorough and lasting Romanizing of the whole country.\n His marriage with the English princess Margaret, a zealous\n supporter of the papacy, marks the beginning of that policy\n which was carried out and completed by their son David, who\n died in A.D. 1152. In Ireland the English conquest of A.D. 1171\n under Henry III. prepared the way for the complete Romanizing\n of the island. Still in both Scotland and Ireland down to the\n 14th century many of the old Celtic priests survived. To them was\n given the Celtic name Kele-de, _servus_ or _vir Dei_, Latinized\n as Colidei, and in modern form, Culdees. They were secular\n priests who, bound by a strict rule, in companies generally of\n twelve with a prior over them, like a Catholic canon (\u00a7 84, 1),\n devoted themselves to a common spiritual life and activity,\n maintaining an existence in many places down to the end of\n the 8th century. The origin of the rule under which they lived\n is still very obscure. It allowed them to marry but enforced\n abstinence from marital intercourse during the period of their\n service, and required of them, besides the charge of the public\n services, special attention to the poor. In Scotland particularly\n their societies soon became so numerous that almost the whole\n secular clergy went over to them. By the forcible introduction\n of regular canons they were crushed more and more down to the\n 11th century, or where they still existed, they were deprived\n of the right of pastoral supervision and administration of the\n sacraments and reduced to subordinate positions, such as that\n of choir singers.--The usual application of the name of Culdees\n to all, even earlier representatives of the Celtic church, is\n quite unjustifiable.[214]\n\n\n \u00a7 78. THE CONVERSION AND ROMANIZING OF GERMANY.[215]\n\n In the Roman period the regions of the Rhine and the Danube had\nbecome Christian countries, but the rush of the migration of the\npeoples had partly destroyed the Christian foundations, partly overlaid\nthem with heathen superstitions. By the end of the 6th century a great\npart of Germany was already under the dominion of the Franks, and,\nto distinguish it from the country of the West Franks or Neustria,\nwas called Austrasia or the land of the East Franks. South-western\nand South-eastern Germany (Alemannia, Bavaria, Thuringia) was governed\nby native dukes under the often disputed over-lordship of the Franks.\nNorth-western Germany (embracing the Frisians and the Saxons) still\nenjoyed undisputed national independence. The first serious attempt\nto introduce or restore Christianity in Austrasia began about the end\nof the 6th century. The missionaries who took the work in hand went,\npartly from Neustria, partly from this side of the Channel. The Irish\nand Scottish monasteries were overflowing. Those dwelling in them\nhad an unconquerable passion for travel and in their hearts an eager\nlonging to spread Christ\u2019s kingdom by preaching the gospel. This\nimpulse was greatly strengthened by the overthrow of their national\nprestige (\u00a7 77, 6). They were thus out of sympathy with their native\nland, and were encouraged to hope that they might win on the opposite\ncontinent what they had lost at home. Crowds of monks from Iro-Scottish\nmonasteries crossed over into the heathen provinces of Germany. But\nRomish Christian Anglo-Saxons, no less fond of travel, impelled by\nthe same missionary fervour and no slight zeal for their own communion,\nfollowed in their steps. Thus in the 8th century on German soil the\nstruggle was renewed which at home had been already fought out, to\nend again as before in the defeat of the Celtic claims. In almost all\nGerman countries we find traces of Irish or Scottish missionaries and\nmarried priests, reproachfully styled adulterers. What mainly secured\nfor the Anglo-Saxons the victory over them was the practical talent for\norganization shown by the former, and their attachment to the imposing\nspiritual power of the papal see. To them alone is Germany indebted\nfor her incorporation into the Roman ecclesiastical union; for even\nthe Frankish missionaries for the most part had no connection with\nRome.--Most rapid and successful progress was made by the mission\nwhere there had previously been Christian institutions, _e.g._ in\nthe provinces of the Rhine and the Danube. The work was more difficult\non the east of the Scheldt in Friesland, Hesse, Thuringia and Saxony,\nwhere paganism had reigned undisturbed. Mission work was at once\nfurthered and hindered by the selfish patronage of the Frankish rulers.\nPaganism and national liberty, the yoke of Christ and the yoke of the\nFranks, seemed inseparably conjoined. The one stood and fell with the\nother. The sword of the Franks was to make the way for the cross of\nChrist, and the result of preaching was to afford an introduction to\npolitical subjection. The missionaries submitted regretfully to this\namalgamation of religious and political interests, but it was generally\nunavoidable.\n\n \u00a7 78.1. =South-Western Germany.=--Here were located the\n powerful race of the =Alemanni=. Of the Christian institutions\n of the Roman period only some shadowy remnants were now to be\n seen. The diet of Tolbiac in A.D. 496 which gave the Franks a\n Christian king, first secured an entrance among the Alemanni\n to Christianity. Yet progress was slow, for the Franks did\n not resort to force. The revision of Alemannian jurisprudence,\n concluded by Dagobert I. about A.D. 630, assumed indeed that the\n country was wholly Christian, but it only anticipated what the\n country was destined to become. =Fridolin= (\u00a7 77, 7), founder\n of the monastery of Seckingen on an island of the Rhine above\n Basel, is called the first Apostle of the Alemanni, A.D. 510.\n The reports that have reached us of his work are highly legendary\n and unreliable. After =Columbanus= in A.D. 610 had been compelled\n along with his companions to leave the Frankish territory\n (\u00a7 77, 7), he chose Alemannian Switzerland as the field of their\n operations. They settled first of all at Tuggen on the Zurich\n lake. The fiery zeal with which they destroyed heathen idols,\n roused the wrath of the inhabitants, who maltreated them and\n drove them away. They next wrought for three years at Bregentz\n where they converted many pagans. The main instrument in this\n work was =Gallus= who had gained thorough mastery of the language\n of the people. Driven from this place also, Columbanus and\n his followers settled in Italy. Only =Gallus=, who was ill at\n the time, remained behind. He felt obliged, in spite of all\n unfavourable circumstances, to carry on the work that had been\n begun. In a wild forest dale by the stream Steinach, where he\n was held firm by a thorn bush while on his knees praying, he\n built a cell, from which arose in later times the famous abbey of\n St. Gall. He died, after an eminently useful and successful life\n in his 95th year in A.D. 646. He does not seem to have been so\n persistent as Columbanus in maintaining the peculiarities of the\n British church. His disciple =Magnoald= continued his work and\n founded the monastery of F\u00fcssen on the Upper Lech in Swabia. At\n the same time there wrought at Breisgau the hermit =Trudpert=, an\n Irishman, who laid the foundation of the future abbey of Trudpert\n at the foot of the Black Forest, and was murdered in A.D. 643\n by a servant given up to him for forced labour. Somewhat later\n we meet with =Pirminius=, a Frankish cleric, on the Lake of\n Constance, where, under the protection of the Frankish ruler\n Charles Martel, he founded the monastery of Reichenau in A.D. 724.\n A national rising of the Alemanni against the Franks drove him\n away after three years; but the monastery remained uninjured. He\n then proceeded down the Rhine and founded several monasteries,\n the last at Hornbach in the diocese of Metz, where he died in\n A.D. 753.\n\n \u00a7 78.2. =South-Eastern Germany.=--After the successful labours\n of Severinus (\u00a7 76, 6) the history of the Danubian provinces\n is shrouded in thick darkness. A hundred years later we find\n there the powerful nation of the Boyars, now Bavarians, with\n native dukes descended from Agilulf. Only scanty remnants of\n Christianity were to be seen. In A.D. 615 the Frankish abbot\n =Eustasius= of Luxeuil, the successor of Columbanus, appears\n prosecuting the missionary labours, and struggling against the\n so-called heresies of Bonosus and Photinus, remnants probably\n of Gothic Arianism. About the middle of the 7th century, at the\n court of the Duke of Bavaria, Theodo I., at Regensburg, =Emmeran=,\n bishop of Poitiers, laboured for three years. Suddenly he\n left the country and made a pilgrimage to Italy. Being charged\n with the seduction of the Princess Ota, he was on his journey\n in A.D. 652, according to others in A.D. 715, overtaken by her\n brother and cruelly murdered. Ota is said at the advice of the\n saint himself to have named him as her seducer, in order to\n screen the actual seducer from vengeance. The true Apostle of\n Bavaria was bishop =Rupert= of Worms. In A.D. 696 he baptized\n the Duke Theodo II. with his household, founded many churches\n and monasteries, and almost completed the Christianizing of\n the country. The centre of his operations was the bishopric of\n Salzburg, founded by him. About A.D. 716 he returned to Worms\n and died there in A.D. 717. An old tradition describes him as\n a Scot, whether in respect of his descent or of his undoubtedly\n ecclesiastical tendencies, is uncertain. We find at least no\n trace of his having had any connection with Rome. Soon after\n him a Frankish itinerant bishop called =Corbinianus= made his\n appearance in Bavaria, and was the founder of the episcopal see\n at Freisingen, A.D. 724. He was a man of imperious temper and\n unbending stubbornness, who exercised discipline with reckless\n strictness, rooted out the remnants of pagan superstition, and\n founded many churches and monasteries. He died in A.D. 730.--That\n the Frankish missionaries were still more or less influenced by\n the old British traditions is shown by the fact that Boniface\n found the Bavarian church free from Rome. Duke Theodo II. soon\n after Rupert\u2019s departure on a pilgrimage to Rome had indeed\n entered into relations with Gregory II., in consequence of which\n three Roman clerics made their appearance in Bavaria. But the\n organization of the Bavarian church committed to them by the\n pope could not be carried out on account of political troubles.\n Boniface was the first who succeeded in some measure in\n doing this.--The Apostle of the neighbouring Thuringians was\n an Irishman =Kilian= or Kyllena, who, toward the end of the\n 7th century, along with twelve companions, entered the province\n of W\u00fcrzburg. These faithful men found the reward of their labours\n in the crown of martyrdom. But crowds of their zealous believing\n fellow-countrymen followed them, and continued with rich success\n the work which they had begun, until, after a hard struggle, they\n were obliged to resign the field to Boniface.\n\n \u00a7 78.3. =North-Western Germany.=--In the Middle Rhine provinces\n Christian episcopal dioceses had been maintained, but in a feeble\n condition and overrun with crowds of heathen people. About the\n middle of the 6th century a Frank called =Goar= settled as a\n hermit within the bounds of the diocese of Treves, converted\n many of the surrounding heathens and put to shame the envious\n suspicions of the clergy of Treves, his holiness being attested\n according to later legends by many extraordinary miracles. The\n beautiful town of St. Goar has grown up round the spot where he\n built his cell and church. After him in the same region wrought\n a Longobard =Wulflaich= who as a stylite (\u00a7 44, 6), in spite\n of the northern climate, preached down to the heathens from\n his pillar. But the neighbouring bishops disliked his senseless\n asceticism and had the pillar thrown down.--After the Frankish\n king Dagobert I. conquered the south of the Netherlands in\n A.D. 630, an accomplished Frankish priest, =Amandus=, appeared\n at Rome preaching the gospel among the Frisians settled there.\n The command given by him for the compulsory baptism of all the\n pagans only intensified the hatred against him and his sacred\n message. Insulted, maltreated and repeatedly thrown into the\n Scheld, he left the country to missionarize among the Basques\n of the Pyrenees and then among the Slavs of the Danube. But at\n a later period he returned to Ghent, and gained great influence\n after having succeeded in converting a rich Frisian called\n Bavo, with whose help he built two monasteries. In A.D. 647\n he was chosen bishop of Maestricht, but retired in A.D. 649,\n notwithstanding the dissuasion of Pope Martin I., on account of\n the opposition of his clergy, and then founded the monastery of\n Elno, afterwards called St. Amand, near Tournay, where he died\n in A.D. 648. During the same period wrought =Eligius=, formerly a\n skilful goldsmith at the court of Dagobert, from A.D. 641 bishop\n of Noyon, where he died in A.D. 658. He took numerous missionary\n journeys for the conversion of the Frisians extending as far\n as the Scheld. From this side of the Channel too wistful eyes\n had looked over to the Frisian coasts. A Briton said to have\n been converted to Romanism by Augustine the Apostle of the\n Anglo-Saxons, =Livinus=, appeared as a missionary on the Scheld\n about A.D. 650, but was slain by the heathens soon after his\n arrival. The celebrated supporter of Romish claims, =Wilfrid=\n (\u00a7 77, 6), first preached the gospel to the Frisians living\n north of the Scheld. He had been elected archbishop of York, but,\n expelled from his bishopric (\u00a7 88, 3), he went to seek protection\n at Rome and was cast by a storm on the Frisian shores, which was\n fortunate for him as hired assassins waited for him in France.\n He spent the winter of A.D. 677-678 in Friesland, preached daily,\n baptized Duke Aldgild and \u201cthousands\u201d of the people. But in\n the following spring he took his departure. Aldgild\u2019s successor\n Radbod (\u2020 A.D. 719), who passed his whole life in war with Pippin\n of Heristal (\u2020 A.D. 714) and Charles Martel, hated and persecuted\n Christianity as the religion of the Franks, and the seed sown\n by Wilfrid perished. Pippin\u2019s victory at Dorstadt in A.D. 689\n compelled him for a time to show greater toleration. Then\n immediately a Frankish mission was started under bishop =Wulfram=\n of Sens, a pupil of the monastery of Fontanelle founded by\n Columbanus. According to an interesting tradition, which, however,\n does not stand the test of criticism, Radbod was himself just\n about to receive baptism, but drew back from the baptismal font,\n because he would rather go with his glorious forefathers to hell\n than enter the Christian heaven with a crowd of miserable people.\n It is probably only a legend designed in the interest of the\n doctrine of predestination.--The true Apostle of the Frisians was\n the Anglo-Saxon =Wilibrord= who, in company with twelve followers,\n undertook the work in A.D. 690. Born in Northumbria about\n A.D. 658, he received his first training under Wilfrid at the\n monastery of Ripon and then in an Irish monastery under the\n direction of Egbert, whose debt to the Frisians (\u00a7 77, 8) he\n now undertook to pay. Pippin gave protection and aid to the\n missionaries, and Wilibrord travelled to Rome that he might get\n there support for his life work. He returned armed with papal\n approbation and supplied with relics. But meanwhile a party of\n his followers, probably dissatisfied with his control, sent one\n of their number called Suidbert to England, where he received\n episcopal consecration. Wilibrord\u2019s party, however, kept the\n upper hand. Suidbert went to the Bructeri on the Upper Ems, and,\n when driven thence by the Saxons, to the Rhine, where he built a\n monastery on an island of the Rhine given him by Pippin, and died\n there in A.D. 715.--After many years\u2019 successful labour Wilibrord,\n at Pippin\u2019s command, went a second time to Rome in A.D. 696, to\n be there consecrated a bishop. Sergius I. gave him consecration\n under the name of Clement, distinguishing him in this way as\n an eminent man, and Pippin gave him the castle of Utrecht as\n an episcopal residence. From this centre his missionary labours\n stretched out over Radbod\u2019s realm and even across the Danish\n frontier. During a visit to the island of Heligoland he ventured\n to baptize three men in a holy well. Radbod would have the\n blasphemers together to sacrifice to the gods; thrice he enquired\n at the sacred lot, but it answered regularly in favour of the\n missionaries. But, in consequence of the complete defeat which\n Charles Martel suffered at the hands of Radbod at Cologne, in\n A.D. 715, the Frisian mission was stopped and only after Radbod\u2019s\n death in A.D. 719 could Wilibrord commence operations again from\n the monastery of Echternach, to which he had meanwhile withdrawn.\n When he died at the age of eighty-one in A.D. 739, the conversion\n at least of South Friesland was almost completed. We hear nothing\n of conflicts and disputes with Celtic missionaries all through\n his fifty years of missionary labour, in consequence, no doubt,\n of his mild and peaceful temper, which led him to attend rather\n to the Christianizing of the heathen than to the Romanizing\n of those who were already Christian.--In consequence of\n jurisdictional claims of the Cologne see, the episcopate of\n Utrecht remained vacant for a long time after Wilibrord\u2019s death.\n The mission among the heathens was meanwhile conducted with zeal\n and success by =Gregory=, a Frankish nobleman of the Merovingian\n family and a favourite pupil of Boniface, who as abbot of the\n monastery of Utrecht presided over its famous seminary. Willehad,\n the Anglo-Saxon, was held in high repute by his scholars and\n was made bishop of Bremen by Charlemagne. The conversion of the\n northern Frisians was completed by =Liudger=, a native Frisian,\n afterwards bishop of M\u00fcnster.\n\n \u00a7 78.4. =The Missionary Work of Boniface.=--The Anglo-Saxon\n =Winfrid= or =Boniface=,[216] born at Kirton in Wessex\n about A.D. 680 had at an early age, on account of his piety,\n ecclesiastical tastes and practical talent, gained an honourable\n position in the church of his native land. But he was driven by\n an irresistible impulse to devote himself to the heathen tribes\n of Germany. In A.D. 716 he landed in Friesland. Although Radbod,\n then at war with Charles Martel, considering that he had no\n connection with the Franks, put no hindrances in his way, he\n had not such success as encouraged him to continue, and so before\n winter he returned home. But his missionary ardour gave him no\n rest; even his election as abbot of his monastery of Nutscall was\n not sufficient to hold him back. And so in the spring of A.D. 718\n he crossed the Channel a second time, but went first of all to\n Rome, where Gregory II., A.D. 715-731, supplied him with relics\n and papal authority for the German mission. The task to which\n he now applied himself was directed less to the uprooting of\n paganism than to the overthrow of that Celtic heresy which had\n on many sides struck its roots deeply in German soil. He next\n attempted to gain a footing in Thuringia. But he could neither\n induce the \u201cadulterous\u201d priests to submit to Rome, nor seduce\n their people from allegiance to them. News of Radbod\u2019s death\n in A.D. 719 moved him to make a journey into Friesland, where\n he aided Wilibrord for three years in converting the heathens.\n Wilibrord wished him to remain in Friesland as his coadjutor,\n and to be his future successor in the bishopric of Utrecht. But\n this reminded him of his own special task. He tore himself away\n and returned to Upper Hesse in A.D. 722. Here he won to Roman\n Christianity two Christian chiefs Dettic and Deorulf, erected\n with their help the monastery of Amanaburg (Arn\u00f6neburg, not\n far from the Ohm or _Amana_), and baptized, as his biographer\n Willibald assures us, in a short time \u201cmany thousands\u201d of the\n heathens. He reported his success to the pope who called him to\n Rome in A.D. 723, where, after exacting of him a solemn vow of\n fealty to the papal chair, he consecrated him Apostolic bishop\n or Primate of all Germany, and gave him a _Codex canonum_ and\n commendatory letters to Charles Martel and the German clergy,\n as well as to the people and princes of Thuringia, Hesse, and\n even heathen Saxony. He next secured at the court of Charles\n Martel a letter of protection and introduction from that powerful\n prince, and then again betook himself to Hesse. The cutting\n down of the old sacred oak of Thor at Geismar near Fritzlar\n in A.D. 724, against which he raised the axe with his own hand\n amid the breathless horror of the heathen multitudes, building\n a Christian chapel with its timber, marked the downfall of\n heathenism in the heart of Germany. In the following year,\n A.D. 725, he extended his operations into Thuringia, where\n Celtic institutions were still more widely spread than in Hesse.\n This extension of his field of labour required a corresponding\n increase of his staff. He applied to his English friends, of whom\n bishop Daniel of Winchester was the most distinguished. His call\n was responded to year after year by Anglo-Saxon priests, monks\n and nuns. All England was roused to enthusiasm for the work of\n its apostle and supported him with advice and practical aid,\n with prayers and intercessions, with gifts and presents for his\n personal and ecclesiastical necessities. Thus there soon arose\n two spiritual armies over against one another; both fought with\n equal enthusiasm for what seemed to them most high and holy.\n But the Anglo-Saxon invader gained ground always more and more,\n though indeed amid much want, weariness and care, and the Celtic\n church gradually disappeared before advancing Romanism. Meanwhile\n Gregory II. had died. His successor Gregory III., A.D. 731-741,\n to whom Boniface had immediately submitted a report, answered by\n sending him the archiepiscopal pallium with a commission as papal\n legate in the German lands to found bishoprics and consecrate\n bishops. His work in Thuringia, after ten years\u2019 struggles and\n contests, was so far successful that he could look around for\n other fields of labour. He chose now, however, not heathen Saxony\n but the already Christianized Bavaria, which, as still free from\n Rome and strongly infected with the British heresy, seemed to\n afford a more attractive field for his missionary zeal. He made\n a hasty tour of inspection through the country in A.D. 735-736.\n The most important result of this journey was the accession\n of a fiery young Bavarian named Sturm, supposed to be next in\n succession to Odilo the heir of the throne, whom Boniface took\n with him to educate at the seminary at Fritzlar. In the following\n year he undertook a third journey to Rome, undoubtedly to consult\n with the pope about the further organization of the German\n church and the best mode of its accomplishment. He had the most\n flattering reception and stayed almost a whole year in Rome.\n The pope sent him away in A.D. 738 with apostolic letters to\n the clergy, people and nobles of Middle Germany, and also to\n some distinguished Bavarian and Alemannian bishops, in which\n those addressed were urged to assist his legate by their ready\n and hearty obedience in bringing about a much-needed organization\n of the churches in their several provinces.[217]\n\n \u00a7 78.5. =The Organization Effected by Boniface.=--The attention\n of Boniface was directed first of all to Bavaria, and duke Odilo\n reigning there since A.D. 737 anticipated it by an invitation.\n Arriving in Bavaria he divided the whole Bavarian church into\n four dioceses. Bivilo of Passau had before this been consecrated\n as bishop in Rome. Erembert of Freisingen received consecration\n at the hand of the legate. The bishops of Regensburg and Salzburg,\n however, down to the close of their lives, asserted themselves\n as opposition bishops over against those appointed by Boniface.\n Odilo, too, withdrew from him his favour, and entrusted not\n to him but to Pirminian the Alemannian Apostle, who sided with\n the Celtic church, the organization and oversight of several\n newly-founded Bavarian monasteries. Thus the results of the papal\n legate\u2019s visit to Bavaria were of a very doubtful kind, and he\n had not even made a beginning of Romanizing Alemannia. In the\n meantime, however, an incident occurred which gave him in a short\n time the highest measure of influence and success. Charles Martel\n died in A.D. 741 and his sons succeeded him, Carloman in Austrasia\n and Pepin the Short in Neustria. Charles Martel had indeed on\n Gregory\u2019s recommendation given Boniface a letter of protection\n that he might carry on his work in Hesse and Thuringia, but\n he had never gone further, so that Boniface often complained\n bitterly to his English friends of the indolent, even hostile\n attitude of the Frankish prince. But he could not wish a better\n coadjutor than Carloman, who was really rather more a monk than\n a prince. And so Boniface no longer delayed the organization of\n the Hessian and Thuringian churches, for in the course of the\n year 741 he founded four bishoprics there. It was a matter of\n still greater consequence that Carloman and then also Pepin aided\n him in the reorganization of the Frankish national church on\n both sides of the Vosges mountains, where partly on account of\n sympathy with the British church system, partly on account of the\n wild spirit engendered by a life of war and the chase, the clergy\n had not hitherto submitted to the influence of the papal emissary.\n In order that the estates of the realm might be advised by \u201cthe\n envoy of St. Peter\u201d and the clergy of the empire about what was\n necessary for the Austrasian church, Carloman, at the close of\n an imperial diet, at a place unknown, called the first Austrasian\n Synod, _Concilium Germanicum_, in A.D. 742, and gave to its\n decrees the authority of imperial laws. Boniface was recognised\n as Archbishop and Primate of the whole Austrasian church; it was\n forbidden that the higher or lower clergy should have anything\n to do with arms, hunting and war, that all \u201cfalse and adulterous\u201d\n priests should be expelled; that the admission of \u201cstrange\u201d\n clerics should be dependent on examination before a Synod to\n be held annually; that in all monasteries the Benedictine rule\n (\u00a7 85, 1) should be enforced; and that it be made the duty of\n counts to support the bishops in maintaining church discipline\n and stamping out all remnants of paganism. In the next year,\n A.D. 743, Carloman summoned the Second Austrasian Synod at\n Liptin\u00e4, now Lestines, near Cambray, which confirmed the decrees\n of the first and enlarged their scope, especially in regard to\n the rooting out of pagan superstition and enforcing strictly the\n Romish prohibition of marriage between those naturally (\u00a7 61, 2)\n and spiritually (\u00a7 58, 1) related. Thus upon the whole the\n legal reorganization of the church of Austrasia might have\n been regarded as complete, even though its actual enforcement\n required yet many severe struggles. In A.D. 744 Boniface laid\n the foundation of the famous monastery of Fulda which for\n many centuries was a chief resort and principal school of\n the Benedictine monks of Germany. Its first abbot was young\n Sturm.--After the close of the Austrasian Synod Boniface began\n to treat with Pepin about the reorganization of the church in\n Neustria. Pepin called a Neustrian provincial Synod at Soissons\n in A.D. 744. Its decrees in regard to discipline were in essential\n agreement with those of the two Austrasian Synods. Besides it was\n resolved to erect three metropolitan sees. Two of the prelates\n designate, however, refused to accept the pallium offered by pope\n Zacharias, A.D. 741-752, ostensibly on the plea that the payment\n of the fee demanded would render them guilty of simony. Their\n refusal, however, was perhaps mainly due to Pepin\u2019s discovery\n that the political unity of Neustria required a Primate at Rheims\n rather than three metropolitans (\u00a7 83). At a national Synod,\n place of meeting unknown, held in A.D. 745, called by the two\n princes acting together, at Boniface\u2019s request the bishop Gewilib\n of Mainz, a rude warrior guilty of secret murders, was deposed.\n It was now the wish of Boniface that he should receive the vacant\n episcopal chair of Cologne, which was destined to be raised\n into a metropolitan see. Yet, through the machinations of his\n opponents, the vacancy at Cologne was otherwise filled, and\n Boniface was at last obliged to be satisfied with the less\n important bishopric of Mainz. At a second national Council\n of A.D. 748 held probably at D\u00fcren he succeeded in getting\n a considerable number of Austrasian and Neustrian bishops to\n subscribe a declaration of absolute submission to the pope\n in which they fully acknowledged the papal supremacy over the\n Frankish church. Pepin, who now, after the retirement of his\n brother Carloman from the government in A.D. 747, in order to\n spend the rest of his days in the monastery of Monte Cassino,\n was sole ruler of both kingdoms, obtained the express approval\n of pope Zacharias in A.D. 752 in making an end of the puppet\n show of a sham Merovingian royalty (\u00a7 82, 1). But it is quite\n a mistake to say that Boniface was the intermediary in this\n matter between the pope and the mayor of the palace. His letters\n rather show, from the disfavour in which he at that time stood\n at the court of Pepin, that the negociations were carried on\n directly with the pope without his knowledge.[218]\n\n \u00a7 78.6. =Heresies Confronted by Boniface.=--Among the numerous\n heresies with which Boniface had to deal the most important were\n those of the Frankish Adalbert, the Scotchman Clement, and the\n Irishman Virgilius. Adalbert wrought on the left bank of the\n Rhine far into the interior of Neustria; Clement among the East\n Franks. In the summer of A.D. 743 Carloman had at Boniface\u2019s\n urgent request cast both into prison, and at the Neustrian Synod\n of Soissons in A.D. 744 Boniface secured Adalbert\u2019s condemnation.\n Yet soon after we find both at liberty. Boniface now accused them\n before the pope Zacharias, and they were condemned unheard at\n a Lateran Council in A.D. 745. The legate\u2019s written accusation\n charged the Frankish =Adalbert= with the vilest hypocrisy and\n blasphemy: He boasted that an angel had brought him relics\n of extraordinary miracle-working power, by which he could do\n anything that God could; he placed himself on an equality with\n the apostles; he introduced unlearned and uncanonically ordained\n bishops; he forbade pilgrimages to Rome, and the consecration\n of churches and chapels in the names of apostles and martyrs,\n but had no objection to their consecration in his own name; he\n neglected divine service in consecrated places and assembled the\n people for worship in woods and fields and wheresoever it seemed\n good to him; he let his own hair and nails be venerated as relics;\n he absolved those who came to him in confession with the words:\n I know all your sins, for nothing is hidden from me, confession\n is unnecessary, go in peace, your sins are forgiven you, etc.;\n in this way he won great influence especially over women and\n peasants, who honoured him as a great apostle and miracle-worker.\n Three documents supported the report of Boniface; viz., a\n biography of Adalbert composed by one of his admirers, according\n to which his mother in the \u201cever blessed\u201d hour of his birth had\n in vision seen an ox go forth out her right side; also, a letter\n said to have fallen from heaven to Jerusalem which guaranteed his\n divine mission; and finally, a prayer composed by him which while\n generally breathing a spirit of deep humility and firm faith,\n went on to invoke a rarely-named angel. If we strike out from\n these charges those which evidently rest upon misunderstanding\n and legendary or malevolent exaggeration, we have before us a\n man who in opposition to the prevailing worship of saints and\n relics maintained that the relics set up for veneration were no\n more worthy of it than his own hair and nails would be, who also\n disputed the advantage of pilgrimages, denied the necessity of\n auricular confession, insisted upon the universal priesthood of\n believers in opposition to Romish hierarchical claims, and the\n evangelical worship of God in spirit and in truth in opposition\n to the Romish overestimation of consecrated places; but in\n doing so perhaps, more certainly in mystic-theosophic enthusiasm\n than in conscious deceitfulness, he may have boasted of divine\n revelations and the possession of miracle-working power.--The\n figure of the Scotchman =Clement= comes out yet more distinctly\n in the charge formulated against him. He is simply an adherent\n of the pure and unadulterated ecclesiastical system of the old\n British church. He treats with contempt the Canon law, and does\n not regard himself as bound by the decrees of Synods or the\n authority of the Latin Fathers; he claims to be a bishop and\n still lives in \u201cadulterous\u201d wedlock; he affirms that a man\n may marry the widow of his deceased brother; he teaches with\n reference to Christ\u2019s descent into hell that even those who\n died in heathenism may yet be redeemed, and \u201c_affirmat multa\n alia horribilia de pr\u00e6destinatione Dei contraria fidei cath_.\u201d\n The pope committed to his legate the execution of the Synod\u2019s\n condemnatory judgment. But still in A.D. 747 Boniface again\n complains that the undiminished reputation of both heretics at\n all points stands in his way. Soon after this, however, Carloman,\n after Adalbert had submitted in a disputation with Boniface, sent\n him into confinement in the monastery of Fulda, from which he\n made his escape, and after long wanderings was at last killed\n by the swineherds. No information has reached us as to the end\n of Clement.--The Irishman =Virgilius= was from A.D. 744 bishop\n of Salzburg, and, as before at the court of Pepin, so now at his\n recommendation at the court of the Bavarian duke Odilo, he stood\n in high favour. After a long and determined refusal he at last\n agreed to submit to the Romish choice of bishops. A priest of\n his diocese unskilled in Latin had baptized _in nomine patria\n et filia et speritus sancti_, Boniface pronounced such baptism\n invalid. Virgilius thought otherwise and appealed to the pope\n who was obliged to admit that he was right. But now Boniface\n complained of him as a heretic because he taught: _Quod alius\n mundus et alii homines sub terra sint_, and this time the pope\n took the side of his legate, because upon the accepted notion\n of the orbicular form of the earth, the doctrine of antipodes\n (already regarded by Lactantius and Augustine as of dangerous\n tendency) amounted to a denial of the unity of the human\n race and the universality of redemption, whereas the Irishman\n belonging to a seafaring race probably considered the earth to\n be globular. The pope, in A.D. 748, ordered his deposition and\n removal from the clerical order, which Boniface, however, was\n not able to accomplish.[219]\n\n \u00a7 78.7. =The End of Boniface.=--On the one hand, distrusted,\n and set aside by Pepin and the new pope Stephen II., A.D. 752-757,\n from his position as legate (\u00a7 82, 1), and also, on the other\n hand, feeling himself overborne in his old age by the burden of\n his episcopal and archiepiscopal cares, sorrows and conflicts,\n Boniface had his favourite pupil, the energetic Lullus, already\n recognised by pope Zacharias, elected as his successor, and\n with Pepin\u2019s consent transferred to him at once the independent\n administration of the episcopal diocese of Mainz. He now\n determined to devote his last as he had his first energies\n undividedly to his archiepiscopal diocese embracing the Frisian\n church, which still needed firm episcopal control and was now\n threatened with a pagan reaction. After Wilibrord\u2019s death in\n A.D. 739, Cologne, resting its pretensions on an ancient deed\n of gift by Dagobert, claimed jurisdiction over the Frisian church.\n Boniface indeed at Carloman\u2019s orders had ordained a new bishop\n to the Utrecht chair, in A.D. 741, probably the Anglo-Saxon\n Eoban. Yet this new bishop never came into actual, at least not\n into undisputed possession. In one of his last letters Boniface\n earnestly but in vain implores pope Stephen II. to disallow the\n unjust pretensions of Cologne. Charlemagne first settled the\n dispute by requiring Alberich, Gregory\u2019s successor in the Utrecht\n see, to receive consecration at the hands of the Cologne prelate.\n With a stately retinue of fifty-two followers clerical or lay,\n and with a foreboding presentiment carrying with him a winding\n sheet, Boniface sailed down the Rhine in the spring of A.D. 754.\n Whether he had now in view a reorganization of the existing\n Frisian church and how far he succeeded, we have no means of\n knowing. On the other hand his biographers in their legendary\n exaggeration cannot sufficiently extol the wonderful success\n of his missionary preaching. Wherever he appeared throughout\n the land he baptized thousands of heathens. At last he had\n pitched his tent in the neighbourhood of what is now Dokkum,\n and there, on June 5th, A.D. 755, a number of neophytes received\n confirmation. But a wild troop of heathen apostates rushed down\n on them before the break of day. The guard desired to offer armed\n resistance, but Boniface refused to shed blood, and, according\n to the report of an old woman, received his deathblow holding the\n gospel over his head. His companions were also cut down around\n him. Utrecht, Mainz and Fulda quarrelled over his bones. Signs\n and wonders at last decided in favour of Fulda, which he had\n himself fixed upon as their resting place.--By order of Lullus,\n a priest of Mainz called Wilibald wrote his life about A.D. 760.\n Another life by an anonymous author in Utrecht appeared about\n A.D. 790; and yet another by the Regensburg monk Othlo about\n A.D. 1060. His literary remains consist of Epistles, Sermons,\n and Penitentials of doubtful authenticity.\n\n \u00a7 78.8. =An Estimate of Boniface.=--In opposition to the current\n Roman Catholic apotheosis of Boniface which assigns to him as the\n true Apostle of the Germans the highest place of honour in the\n firmament of German saints and cannot find the least shadow or\n defect in all his life, struggles and doings, ultra-protestant\n estimates have run to the very contrary extreme. Ebrard has\n carried this to the utmost length. He refuses to credit him with\n zeal, any hearty regard, any real capacity for proper mission\n work among the heathens. Alongside of Wilibrord he was only a\n despicable Romish spy; in Hesse and Thuringia only the brutal\n destroyer of the Culdee church that flourished there, and in the\n Frankish empire only the inconscionable agent of Rome who allied\n himself to the Rome-favouring dynasty of Pepin in order to secure\n the overthrow of the Culdee-favouring Merovingians, purchasing\n thus Frankish aid in subjecting the German and Frankish churches\n to the hierarchical tyranny of Rome. He can find in him no\n trace of intellectual or spiritual greatness. On the contrary\n fanaticism, hatred and a persecuting spirit, intrigue and\n dishonesty, servility, dissimulation, hypocrisy, lying and\n double dealing are there in abundance. His world-wide fame\n is accounted for by this, that he is the accursed founder of\n all mischief which has arisen upon Germany from its connection\n with the papal chair.--It is true that Boniface stopped the\n course of the national and independent development of the German\n church that had begun and put it on the track of Roman Catholic\n development and mal-development. But even had Boniface never\n crossed the Channel this fate could scarcely have been averted.\n It is further true that Boniface was far more eager in uprooting\n heretical \u201cCeltism\u201d and bringing Frankish and Bavarian Christians\n under the Romish yoke than in converting heathen Saxons to\n Christianity. But he was thus eager because that seemed to him\n in the first instance more necessary and important than aiming\n at new conversions. It is a crying injustice to deny that he\n showed any zeal, any energy, or that he had any success in the\n conversion of the heathen in Friesland, Hesse and Thuringia. All\n his thoughts, labours and endeavours are dominated by a steadfast\n conviction that the pope is the head and representative of\n the church in which alone salvation can be found. But yet with\n him the church laws which emanate from the Holy Spirit stand\n superior to the pope. Hence the right of final decision on all\n ecclesiastical questions belongs indeed to the pope, but only\n _secundum canones_. The expression ascribed to Boniface in\n Gratian\u2019s Decretal: _Papa a nemine judicetur nisi devius a\n fide_ is never met with in any of his extant writings, but\n it thoroughly well characterizes his position. Thus alongside\n of the most abject submission to the chair of Peter, we see\n how firmly he speaks to pope Zacharias in connection with\n the Neustrian pallium affair about the Simoniacal greed of\n the officials, and on another occasion declares his profound\n indignation at the immoral, superstitious and blasphemous\n proceedings, fit to be compared to the old pagan Saturnalia,\n which, went on in Rome openly before the eyes of the pope\n unchecked and unpunished. He also showed brave resistance\n when papal dispensations infringed his ordinances founded\n upon the canon law, and protested vigorously, when Stephen II.,\n in A.D. 754, disregarding the archiepiscopal authority gave\n episcopal consecration to Chrodegang of Metz. But Boniface never\n mixed himself up with the political intrigues of the popes, nor\n did he ever intermeddle in the political man\u0153uvres between Pepin\n and the Merovingians, between the Frankish empire and its German\n vassals. An inventive genius, great and profound thoughts, a\n liberal and comprehensive view of matters, we certainly often\n miss in him. All his thoughts, feelings and desires were bound\n within the narrow limits of Romish ecclesiasticism. His piety\n was deep, earnest and sincere, but is quite of the legalistic\n and hard external kind that characterizes Roman Catholicism.\n With the most painful conscientiousness he holds by Rome\u2019s\n ecclesiastical institutions; any resistance to these is abhorrent\n to him and he persecutes heresies as cursed and soul-destroying.\n He clearly understands the absurdity of prohibiting marriage\n between those who are related only in baptism and at confirmation.\n For he sees that on this principle all marriages between Christian\n people as recipients of baptism must be forbidden since by\n baptism they have all become sons and daughters of Christ and His\n church, and so are spiritually brothers and sisters. But then he\n willingly sacrifices his understanding, and continues to denounce\n all marriages between those spiritually related as fearful sin\n and horrible incest. Very characteristic too are many of his\n questions to the popes as to what should be held on this point\n and that, mostly about very trivial and indifferent matters of\n common life. Thus he lets himself be informed that raw bacon\n should only be eaten smoked, but that the eating of the flesh of\n horses, hares, beavers, jackdaws, ravens and storks is absolutely\n forbidden, \u201c_immundum enim est et execrabile_.\u201d[220]\n\n \u00a7 78.9. =The Conversion of the Saxons.=--The first missionary\n attempts among the Saxons, who had forced their way from the\n north-west of Germany down to the neighbourhood of the Rhine,\n were made by two Anglo-Saxon monks, who were both called Ewald,\n the black or the white Ewald. A Saxon peasant received them\n hospitably, but so soon as he discovered their object, fell\n upon them with his household servants and slew them, A.D. 691.\n Boniface had many pious wishes about his heathen kinsfolk but\n did nothing for their conversion. The most that he did was\n to found the monastery of Fulda on the Saxon frontier as the\n rallying point for a future clerical raid upon Saxon paganism.\n For thirty years, however, this remained but a pious wish, till\n at last the sword of the most powerful of the Frankish kings\n took up the mission. The subjugation of the powerful as well as\n hostile Saxon people was with Charlemagne a political necessity.\n But lasting subjugation was impossible without conversion and\n conversion was impossible without subjugation; for the Saxons\n hated the religion of the Franks no less heartily than they did\n the Franks themselves. Alcuin with true magnanimity exerted all\n his influence with his royal friend against any use of force in\n conversion, but political necessity overcame the counsel of the\n much trusted friend. The Saxon war lasted for thirty-three years,\n A.D. 772-804. In the very first campaign the strongest Saxon\n fortress Eresburg was stormed and their most revered idol, the\n Erminsul, was destroyed. Frankish priests followed the Frankish\n arms and Christianized immediately the conquered districts. But\n as soon as Charlemagne\u2019s army was engaged elsewhere, the Saxons\n proceeded to destroy again all Christian foundations. In the\n imperial diet at Paderborn in A.D. 777 they were obliged to\n swear that life and property would be forfeited by a new apostasy.\n But the most powerful of the Saxon princes, Wittekind, who had\n not appeared at the diet, organized a new revolt. The Frankish\n army sustained a fearful defeat at Mount Sunthal, all Christian\n priests were murdered, all churches were destroyed. Charlemagne\n took a dreadful revenge. At Verden he beheaded in one day 4,500\n Saxons. After a new rebellion, a second diet at Paderborn in\n A.D. 785 prescribed for them horribly bloody laws. The least\n resistance against the precepts of the church was punished with\n death. Wittekind and Albion, the two most famous Saxon chiefs,\n acknowledged the vanity of further resistance. They were baptized\n in A.D. 785 and continued thenceforward faithful to the king\n and the church. But the rebellions of the rest of the Saxons\n were still continued. In A.D. 804 Charlemagne drove 10,000 Saxon\n families from their homes on the Elbe, and gave the country to\n the Obohites [Obotrites] that were subject to him. Now for the\n first time was a lasting peace secured. Charlemagne had founded\n eight bishoprics in Saxony, and under these bishops\u2019 care\n throughout this blood-deluged country, no longer disturbed,\n a Christianity was developed as truly hearty and fresh as in\n any other part of Germany. One witness to this among others is\n afforded by the popular epic the Heliand (\u00a7 89, 3).[221]\n\n\n \u00a7 79. THE SLAVS IN GERMAN COUNTRIES.[222]\n\n The sudden rush of the wild hordes of the Huns in the 5th century\ndrove the Slavs to the south of the Danube and to the west of the\nVistula. Again in the 6th century Slavic tribes forced their way\nwestward under pressure from the Mongolian Avars who took possession\nof Dacia, Pannonia and Dalmatia. For the conversion of the Slavs in\nnorth-eastern Germany nothing was done; but much was attempted on\nbehalf of the conversion of the southern Slavs and the Avars, who were\nspecially under the care of the see of Salzburg.\n\n \u00a7 79.1. =The Carantanians and Avars.=--The Carantanian prince\n Boruth, in what is now called Carinthia, in A.D. 748 asked the\n help of the Bavarian duke Thassilo II. against the oppression\n of the Avars. His nephew Chatimar, who had received a Christian\n training in Bavaria, when in A.D. 753 he succeeded to the throne,\n introduced Christianity into his country. After the overthrow\n of Thassilo in A.D. 788, Carinthia came under Frankish rule, and\n Charlemagne extended his conquests over the Avars and Moravians.\n Bishop Arno of Salzburg, to whom metropolitan rights had been\n accorded, conducted a regular mission by Charlemagne\u2019s orders\n for the conversion of these peoples. In A.D. 796, Tudun, the\n prince of the Avars, with a great band of his followers, received\n baptism, and vowed in A.D. 797 to turn the whole nation of the\n Avars to Christianity, and asked for Christian teachers. In\n the 9th century, however, the name of the Avars passed away\n from history.\n\n \u00a7 79.2. =The Moravian Church.=--In A.D. 855 Rastislaw, Grand\n Duke of Moravia, freed his country from the Frankish yoke and\n deprived the German bishops of all their influence. He asked\n Slavic missionaries from the Byzantine emperor. The brothers\n =Cyril= and =Methodius= (\u00a7 73, 2, 3) who had already approved\n themselves as apostles of the Slavs, answered the call in\n A.D. 863. They introduced a liturgy and public worship in the\n language of the Slavs, and by preaching in the Slavic tongue\n they won their way to the hearts of the heathen people. But in\n spite of this encouraging success they found themselves, amid\n the political convulsions of the age, in a difficult position.\n Only by attachment to the pope could they reasonably expect\n to hold their ground. They accepted therefore an invitation\n of Nicholas I. in A.D. 867, but on their arrival in Rome they\n found that Hadrian II. had succeeded to the papal chair. Cyril\n remained in Rome and soon died, A.D. 869. =Methodius= swore\n fealty to the pope and was sent away as archbishop of Moravia.\n But now all the more were the German bishops hostile to him.\n They suspected his fidelity to the pope, charged him with heresy\n and inveighed against the Slavic liturgy which he had introduced.\n John VIII., rendered suspicious of him by these means, called\n upon him in strong terms in A.D. 879 to make answer for himself\n at Rome. Methodius obeyed and succeeded in completely vindicating\n himself. The pope confirmed him in his archiepiscopal rank and\n expressly permitted him to use the Slavic liturgy, enjoining,\n however, that by way of distinction the gospel should first be\n read in Latin and then rendered in a Slavic translation. The\n intrigues of the German clergy, however, continued and embittered\n the last days of the good and brave apostle of the Slavs. He\n died in A.D. 885. A general persecution now broke out against\n the Slavic priests and the metropolitan chair of Moravia remained\n vacant for fourteen years. John IX. restored it in A.D. 899. But\n in A.D. 908 the Moravian kingdom was overthrown. The Bohemians\n and Magyars shared the spoil between them.\n\n \u00a7 79.3. =The Beginnings of Christianity in Bohemia.=--On New\n Year\u2019s day of A.D. 845 fourteen Bohemian lords appeared at\n Regensburg at the court of Louis of Germany and asked for\n baptism along with their followers. Of the motives and of\n the consequences of this step we know nothing. When Rastislaw\n raised the Moravian empire to such a height of glory the\n Bohemians connected themselves closely with Moravia. Rastislaw\u2019s\n successor Swatopluc married a daughter of the Bohemian\n prince Borsivoi in A.D. 871. After that Methodius extended\n his missionary labours into Bohemia. Borsivoi himself and his\n wife, Ludmilla, were baptized by Methodius in A.D. 871. The sons\n of Borsivoi, also, Spitihnew, who died in A.D. 912 and Wratislaw,\n who died in A.D. 926, with the active support of their mother\n furthered the interests of the church in Bohemia.\n\n\n \u00a7 80. THE SCANDINAVIAN NATIONS.[223]\n\n The mission to the Frisians and Saxons called the attention of\nmissionaries to the neighbouring Jutes and Danes. Wilibrord (\u00a7 78, 3)\nin A.D. 696 carried the gospel across the Eider, and Charlemagne felt\nit necessary in order to maintain his authority over the Frisians and\nSaxons to extend his conquest and that of the church over the peninsula\nof Jutland to the sea coast. He could not, however, accomplish his\ndesign. Better prospects opened up before Louis the Pious. Threatened\nwith expulsion through disputes about the succession, Harald the king\nof the Jutes sought the protection of the Franks. Consequently Ebo,\narchbishop of Rheims, crossed the Eider in A.D. 823 at the head of an\nimperial embassy and clothed with full authority from pope Paschalis I.\nHe baptized also a number of Danes, and when, after a year\u2019s absence,\nhe returned home, he took with him several young Jutes to educate as\nteachers for their countrymen. But Harald was again hard pressed and\nconcluded to break entirely with the national paganism. In A.D. 826 he\ntook ship, with wife and child, accompanied by a stately retinue, and\nat Mainz, where Louis then held his court, received baptism with great\npomp and ceremony. Soon after his return a young monk followed him\nfrom the monastery of Corbei on the Weser. =Ansgar=, the apostle of\nthe north, had committed to him by Louis the hard and dangerous task\nof winning the Scandinavian nations for the church. Ansgar devoted his\nwhole life to the accomplishment of this task, and in an incomparable\nmanner fulfilled it, so far as indomitable perseverance, devotion and\nself-denial amid endless difficulties and perverse opposition could\ndo it.\n\n \u00a7 80.1. =Ansgar= or Anschar, the son of a Frankish nobleman, born\n A.D. 801, was educated in the monastery of Old Corbie in Picardy,\n and on the founding of New Corbie in A.D. 822 was made Superior\n of it. Even in very early youth he had dreams and visions which\n led him to look forward to the mission field and the crown of\n martyrdom. Accompanied by his noble-minded brother monk Autbert,\n who would not let his beloved friend go alone, Ansgar started in\n A.D. 826 on his first missionary journey. Harald had established\n his authority in the maritime provinces of Jutland, but he\n ventured not to push on into the interior. In this way the\n missionary efforts of the two friends were restricted. On the\n frontier of Schleswig, however, they founded a school, bought\n and educated Danish slave youths, redeemed Christian prisoners\n of war and preached throughout the country. But in the year\n following Harald was driven out and fled to the province of\n R\u00fcstringen on the Weser, which Louis assigned to him for life.\n Also the two missionaries were obliged to follow him. Autbert\n died in the monastery of Corbie in A.D. 829, having retired\n again to it when seized with illness. Soon afterwards the emperor\n obtained information through ambassadors sent by the Swedish\n king Bjorn, that there were many isolated Christians in their\n land, some of them merchants, others prisoners of war, who had\n a great desire to be visited by Christian priests. Ansgar, with\n several companions, undertook this mission in A.D. 830. On the\n way they were plundered by Norse pirates. His companions spoke\n of returning home, but Ansgar would not be discouraged. King\n Bjorn received them in a very kindly manner. A little group\n of Christian prisoners gathered round them and heartily joined\n in worship. A school was erected, boys were bought and adults\n preached to. Several Swedes sought baptism, among them the\n governor of Birka, Herigar, who built at his own cost the first\n Christian church. After eighteen months Ansgar returned to the\n Frankish court in order to secure a solid basis for his mission.\n Louis thus perceived an opportunity of founding a bishopric for\n the Scandinavian Norsemen at Hamburg on the borders of Denmark.\n He appointed Ansgar bishop in A.D. 834, and assigned to him and\n the mission the revenues of the rich abbey of Turholt in Flanders.\n Ansgar obtained in Rome from Gregory IV. the support of a bull\n which recognised him as exclusively vicar apostolic over all the\n Norse. Then he built a cathedral at Hamburg, besides a monastery,\n bought again Danish boys to educate for the priesthood and sent\n new labourers among the Swedes, at whose head was the Frankish\n monk Gauzbert. But soon misfortunes from all sides showered down\n upon the poor bishop. His patron Louis died in A.D. 840, Harald\n apostatized from the faith, the Swedish missionaries were driven\n out by the pagans, the Norse rushed down on Hamburg and utterly\n destroyed city, church, monastery, and library. Moreover Charles\n the Bald took possession of the abbey of Turholt which according\n to the Treaty of Verdun in A.D. 843 had fallen to Flanders, in\n order to bestow it upon a favourite. Ansgar was now a homeless\n beggar. His clergy, when he had no longer support for them, left\n him. His mission school was broken up. His neighbour, bishop\n Leuterich of Bremen, with whom he sought shelter, inspired by\n despicable jealousy, turned him from his door. At last he got\n shelter from a nobleman\u2019s widow who provided for him at her\n own expense a lodging at Ramslo, a country house near Hamburg.\n In A.D. 846 Leuterich died. Louis of Germany now gave to the\n homeless Apostle of the North a fixed habitation by appointing\n Ansgar to the vacant bishopric. The bishops of Cologne and Verden\n had divided between them the shattered fragments of the Hamburg\n bishopric. But at last pope Nicholas I. in A.D. 834 put an end\n to their selfish pretensions by uniting the two dioceses of\n Hamburg and Bremen into one, and conferring upon it metropolitan\n rights for the North. But meanwhile Ansgar notwithstanding all\n the neediness in which he himself lived had been working away\n uninterruptedly on behalf the Scandinavian mission. In =Denmark=\n the king was Eric whose court Ansgar repeatedly visited as\n ambassador of the German king. By Eric\u2019s favour he had been\n enabled to found a church in Schleswig and to organize a mission\n stretching over the whole country. Eric did not venture himself\n to pass over to Christianity, and when pagan fanaticism broke out\n in open rebellion in A.D. 854, he fell in a battle against his\n nephew who headed the revolt. A boy, Eric II., perhaps grandson\n of the fallen Eric, mounted the throne. But the chief Jovi\n reigned in his name, a bitter foe of the Christians, who drove\n away all Christian priests and threatened every Christian in the\n land with death. Yet in A.D. 855 Eric II. emancipated himself\n from the regency of Jovi and granted toleration to the Christians.\n The work of conversion was now again carried on with new zeal and\n success.--All attempts, by means of new missionaries, to gather\n again the fragments of the mission in =Sweden=, broken up by\n Gauzbert\u2019s expulsion, had hitherto proved vain. At last Ansgar\n himself started on his journey thitherward about A.D. 850. By\n rich presents and a splendid entertainment he won king Olaf\u2019s\n favour. A popular assembly determined to abide by the decision\n of the sacred lot and this decided in favour of the adoption\n of Christianity. From that time the Swedish mission was carried\n on without check or hindrance under the direction of Erimbert,\n whom Ansgar left there. Ansgar died in A.D. 865. The most dearly\n cherished hope of his life, that he should be honoured with the\n crown of martyrdom, was not realized; but a life so full of toil,\n privation and trouble, sacrifice, patience and self-denial, was\n surely nobler than a martyr\u2019s crown.[224]\n\n \u00a7 80.2. =Ansgar\u2019s Successor= in the see of Hamburg-Bremen was\n =Rimbert=, his favourite scholar, his companion in almost all\n his journeys, who wrote an account of his master\u2019s life and\n pronounced him a saint. He laboured according to his ability\n to follow in the steps of his teacher, especially in his care\n for the Scandinavian mission. But he was greatly hindered by\n the wild doings of the Danish and Norse pirates. This trouble\n reached its height after Rimbert\u2019s death, and went so far\n that the archbishop of Cologne on the pretext that the Hamburg\n see had been extinguished was able to renew his claims upon\n Bremen.--Continuation, \u00a7 93.\n\n\n \u00a7 81. CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM.[225]\n\n From A.D. 665 the Byzantine rule in =North Africa= (\u00a7 76, 3) was\nfor a time narrowed and at last utterly overthrown by the Saracens\nfrom Egypt, with whom were joined the Berbers or Moors who had been\nconverted to Islam. In A.D. 711, called in by a rebel, they also\noverthrew the Visigoth power in =Spain= (\u00a7 76, 2). In less than\nfive years the whole peninsula, as far as the mountain boundaries\nof the north, was in the hands of the Moors. Then they cast a covetous\nglance upon the fertile plains beyond the Pyrenees, but Charles Martel\ndrove them back with fearful loss in the bloody battle of Poitiers\nin A.D. 732. The Franks were in this the saviours of Europe and of\nChristianity. In A.D. 750 the Ommaiadean dynasty at Damascus, whose\nlordship embraced also the Moors, were displaced by the Abbassidean,\nbut a scion of the displaced family, Abderrhaman I., appeared in Spain\nand founded there an independent khalifate at Cordova in A.D. 756,\nwhich soon rose to an unexampled splendour. Also in =Sicily= the Moslem\npower obtained an entrance and endeavoured from that centre to maintain\nitself by constant raids upon the courts of Italy and Provence. The\nexpulsion of the Moors from Spain and Sicily was first completely\naccomplished during the next period (\u00a7 95).\n\n \u00a7 81.1. =Islam in Spain.=--The Spanish Christians under the\n Ommaiade rule were called Mozarabians, _Arabi Mustaraba_, _i.e._\n Arabianized Arabs as distinguished from Arabs proper or _Arabi\n Araba_. They were in many places under less severe restrictions\n than the Oriental Christians under Saracen rule. Many Christian\n youths from the best families attended the flourishing Moorish\n schools, entered enthusiastically upon the study of the Arabic\n language and literature, pressed eagerly on to the service of the\n Court and Government, etc. But in opposition to such abandonment\n of the Christian and national conscience there was developed\n the contrary extreme of extravagant rigorism in obtrusive\n confessional courage and uncalled-for denunciation of the prophet.\n Christian fanaticism awakened Moslem fanaticism, which vented\n itself in a bloody persecution of the Christians in A.D. 850-859.\n The first martyr was a monk Perfectus. When asked his opinion\n about Mohammed he had pronounced him a false prophet, and was\n executed. The khalif of that period, Abderrhaman II., was no\n fanatic. He wished to stop the extravagant zeal of the Christians\n at its source, and made the metropolitan Recafrid of Seville\n issue an ecclesiastical prohibition of all blasphemy of the\n prophet. But this enactment only increased the fanaticism of\n the rigorists, at whose head stood the presbyter, subsequently\n archbishop, Eulogius of Cordova and his friend Paulus\n Alvarus (\u00a7 90, 6). Eulogius himself, who kept hidden from\n her parents a converted Moorish maiden, and was on this account\n beheaded along with her in A.D. 859, was the last victim of\n the persecution.--The rule of the Arabs in Spain, however, was\n threatened from two sides. When Roderick\u2019s government (\u00a7 76, 2)\n had fallen before the arms of the Saracens in A.D. 711, Pelayo,\n a relation of his, with a small band of heroic followers,\n maintained Christian national independence in the inaccessible\n mountains of Asturia, and his son-in-law Alphonso the Catholic\n in the Cantabrian mountains on the Bay of Biscay. Alphonso\n subsequently united both parties, conquered Galicia and the\n Castilian mountain land, erecting on all sides the standard\n of the cross. His successors in innumerable battles against\n the infidels enlarged their territory till it reached the\n Douro. Of these Alphonso II., the Chaste, who died in A.D. 850,\n specially distinguished himself by his heroic courage and his\n patronage of learning. Oviedo was his capital. On the east\n too the Christian rule now again made advance.--Charlemagne\n in A.D. 778 conquered the country down to the Ebro. But a\n rebellion of the Saxons prevented him advancing further, and\n the freebooting Basques of the Pyrenees cut down his noblest\n heroes. Two subsequent campaigns in A.D. 800, 801, reduced all\n the country as far as the Ebro, henceforth called the Spanish\n March, under the power of the Franks.[226]\n\n \u00a7 81.2. =Islam in Sicily.=--A Byzantine military officer\n fled from punishment to Africa in A.D. 827 and returned with\n 10,000 Saracen troops which terribly devastated Sicily. Further\n migrations followed and in a few years all Sicily was under the\n rule of the Arabs, who made yearly devastating raids from thence\n upon the Italian coasts, venturing even to the very gates of Rome.\n In A.D. 880 they settled on the banks of the Garigliano, and put\n all central Italy under tribute, until at last in A.D. 916 the\n efforts of pope John X. were successful in driving them out.\n Spanish-Moorish pirates landed in A.D. 889 on the coasts of\n Provence, besieged the fortress of Fraxinetum, and plundered\n from this centre for a hundred years the Alpine districts and\n northern Italy. Their robber career in south Italy was most\n serious of all. It lasted for three centuries and was first\n brought to an end by the Norman invasion.--Continuation, \u00a7 95, 1.\n\n\n\n\n II. THE HIERARCHY, THE CLERGY AND THE MONKS.\n\n\n \u00a7 82. THE PAPACY AND THE CAROLINGIANS.\n\n The Christianizing of the German world was in great part accomplished\nwithout the help of Rome. Hence the German churches, even those that\nwere Catholic, troubled themselves little at first about the papal\nchair. The Visigoth church in Spain was most completely estranged\nfrom it. The Saracen invasion of A.D. 711 cut off all possibility\nof intercourse with Rome. Even the free Christian states in Spain\ndown to the 11th century had no connection with Rome. The Frankish\nchurches, too, in Gaul as well as in Austrasia, throve and ran wild\nin their independence during the Merovingian age. On the other hand,\nthe relation of the English Church to Rome was and continued to be\nvery intimate. Numerous pilgrimages of Anglo-Saxons of higher and lower\nranks were undertaken to the grave of the chief of the Apostles, and\nincreased the dependence of the nation on the chair of St. Peter. For\nthe support of these pilgrims and as a training school for English\nclergy, the _Schola Saxonica_ was founded in the 8th century, and for\nits maintenance and that of the holy places in the city, on Peter\u2019s day\nthe 29th June was collected the so-called Peter\u2019s pence, a penny for\nevery house. Out of this sprang a standing impost on all the English\npeople for the papal chair, which in the 13th century became a money\ntax upon the kings of England which Henry VIII. was the first to\nrepudiate in A.D. 1532. The credit belongs to the Anglo-Saxons and\nespecially to Boniface of not only delivering the rich sheaves of their\nmissionary harvest into the granaries of Rome, but also of organizing\nthe previously existing churches of the Frankish territories after\nthe Romish method and rendering them obedient to the Roman see. Since\nthen there has been such a regular intercourse between the pope and\nthe Carolingian rulers that it absorbed almost completely the whole\ndiplomatic activity of the Romish curia.\n\n \u00a7 82.1. =The Period of the Founding of the States of the\n Church.=--From bequests and presents of ancient times the\n Roman chair succeeded to an immense landed property, _Patrimonium\n S. Petri_, which afforded it the means of greatly assuaging the\n distress of the inhabitants of Italy during the disturbances\n of the migrations of the peoples. There was naturally then no\n word of the exercise of sovereign rights. From the time of the\n restoration of the Byzantine exarchate in A.D. 567 (\u00a7 76, 7) the\n political importance of the pope grew immensely; its continued\n existence was often dependent on the good will of the pope for\n whom generally indeed the idea of becoming the court patriarch\n of a Longobard-Roman emperor was not an enticing one. But the\n pope could not prevent the Longobard power (\u00a7 76, 8) from gaining\n ground in the north as well as in the south of the peninsula. An\n important increase of influence, power and prestige was brought\n to the papal chair under =Gregory II.=, A.D. 715-731, through\n the rebellions in northern and central Italy occasioned by the\n Byzantine iconoclastic disputes. Rome was in this way raised\n to a kind of political suzerainty not only over the Roman duchy\n but also over the rest of the exarchate in the north--Ravenna\n and the neighbouring cities together with Venice (\u00a7 66, 1).\n =Gregory III.=, A.D. 731-741, hard pressed by Luitprand the\n Longobard, thrice (A.D. 739, 740) applied for help to the Frank\n =Charles Martel=, who, closely bound in friendship with Luitprand,\n his ally against the Saracens, sent some clerics to Italy to\n secure a peaceful arrangement. Gregory\u2019s successor =Zacharias=,\n A.D. 741-752, sanctioned by his apostolic judgment the setting\n aside of the Merovingian sham king Childeric III., whereupon\n =Pepin the Short=, in A.D. 752, assumed the royal title with\n the royal power which he had long possessed. The next elected\n pope called Stephen died before consecration, consequently his\n successor of the same name is usually designated =Stephen II.=,\n A.D. 752-757. The Longobard Aistulf had in A.D. 751 conquered\n Ravenna and the cities connected with it. Pope Stephen II. sought\n help anew of the Frankish king and supported his petition by\n forwarding an autograph letter of the Apostle Peter, in which\n he exhorted the king of the Franks as his adopted son under\n peril of all the pains of hell to save Rome and the Roman church.\n He himself at Pepin\u2019s invitation went to France. At Ponthion,\n where, in A.D. 754, the king greeted him, Pepin promised the\n pope to restore to Rome her former possessions and to give\n protection against further inroads of the Longobards; while the\n pope imparted to the king and his two sons Charles and Carloman\n the kingly anointing in the church of St. Dionysius or Denis\n in Paris. At Quiersy then Pepin took counsel with his sons and\n the nobles of his kingdom about the fulfilling of his promise,\n bound the Longobard king by oath in the year following after\n a successful campaign to surrender the cities, properties and\n privileges claimed by the pope, and assigned these in A.D. 755\n as a present to St. Peter as their possessor from that time forth.\n But scarcely had he retired with his army when Aistulf not only\n refused all and any surrender, but broke in anew upon Roman\n territory, robbing and laying waste on every side. By a second\n campaign, however, in A.D. 756, Pepin compelled him actually\n to deliver over the required cities in the provinces of Rome\n and Ravenna the key of which he deposited with a deed of gift,\n no longer extant, on the grave of St. Peter; while the pope,\n transferring to Pepin the honorary title of Exarch of Ravenna,\n decorated him with the insignia of a Roman patrician. When the\n Byzantine envoys claimed Ravenna as their own property, Pepin\n answered that the Franks had not shed their blood for the Greeks\n but for St. Peter.--Aistulf\u2019s death followed soon after this\n and amid the struggles for the succession to the throne one of\n the candidates, duke Desiderius of Tuscany, sought the powerful\n support of the pope and promised him in return the surrender\n of those cities of the eastern province of Ravenna which still\n remained in the hands of the Longobards. The pope obtained\n Pepin\u2019s consent to this transaction, and Desiderius was\n made king. But neither Stephen nor his successor Paul I.,\n A.D. 757-767, could get him completely to fulfil his promise,\n and new encroachments of the Longobards as well as new claims\n of the pope intensified the bad feeling between them, which the\n conciliation of Pepin, who died in A.D. 768 had not by any means\n overcome.[227]\n\n \u00a7 82.2. After the death of Paul I. the nobles forced one of\n their own order upon the Romans as pope under the name of\n Constantine II. Another party with Longobard help appointed\n a presbyter, Philip. The former maintained his ground for\n thirteen months, but was then overthrown by a clerical party\n and, with his eyes put out, was cast into the street. They now\n united in the choice of =Stephen III.=, A.D. 768-772.--Desiderius\n wished greatly to form a marriage connection with the Frankish\n court, and found a zealous friend in Bertrada, the widow of Pepin.\n When Stephen heard of it his wrath was unbounded, and he gave\n unbridled expression to it in a letter which he sent to her sons\n Charlemagne and Carloman. Referring to the fact that the devil\n had already in Paradise by the persuasion of a woman overthrown\n the first man and with him the whole race, he characterized this\n plan as _propria diabolica immissio_, declared that any idea\n of a connection by marriage of the illustrious reigning family\n of the Franks with the _f\u0153tentissima Longobardorum gens_, from\n which all vile infections proceed, was nothing short of madness,\n etc. Not peace and friendship, but only war and enmity with this\n robber of the patrimony of Peter would be becoming in the pious\n kings of the Franks. He laid down this his exhortation at the\n grave of Peter and performed over it a Mass. Whoever sets himself\n to act contrary to it, on him will fall the anathema and with the\n devil and all godless men he shall burn in everlasting flames;\n but whosoever is obedient to it, shall be partaker of eternal\n salvation and glory. Nevertheless Charles married Desiderata the\n daughter of Desiderius, and Gisela, Charles\u2019 sister, married the\n son of Desiderius. But before a year had passed, in A.D. 771,\n he wearied of the Longobard wife and sent her home. Soon after\n this Carloman died. Charles seized upon the inheritance of his\n youthful nephews, who together with their mother found shelter\n with Desiderius. When =Hadrian I.=, A.D. 772-795, refused to give\n the royal anointing to Carloman\u2019s sons, Desiderius took from him\n a great part of the States of the Church and threatened Rome. But\n Charles hastened at the pope\u2019s call to give him help, conquered\n Pavia, shut up king Desiderius in the monastery of Corbei, and\n joined Lombardy to the Frankish empire. Further information\n as to what passed between him and Hadrian at Rome in A.D. 774\n is only to be got from the _Vita Hadriani_ (\u00a7 90, 6) written\n during the reign of Louis of France. It relates as follows: At\n the grave of Peter the pope earnestly exhorted him to fulfil\n at last completely the promise which his father Pepin I. with\n his own consent and that of the Frankish nobles gave to pope\n Stephen II. at Quiersy in A.D. 754. Charles after reading over\n the document referred to agreed to everything promised therein,\n and produced a new deed of gift after the style (_ad instar_)\n of the old, undertaking to transfer to the Roman church\n a territorial possession which, together with the assumed\n _Promissio_ of Pepin described with geographical precision,\n embraced almost all Italy, excepting Lombardy but including\n Corsica, Venice and Istria. It is now quite inconceivable that\n Charles, let alone Pepin, should have given the pope such an\n immense territory which Pepin for a simple footing in A.D. 754,\n and Charles for at least three-fourths of it, must have first\n themselves conquered. Moreover this account of the matter is\n directly contradicted by the statement of all the witnesses of\n Pepin\u2019s own times. On the part of the Franks the continuator of\n the Chronicler Fred\u00e9gar, on the part of the Romans the biographer\n of Stephen II. in the _Liber pontificalis_ and that pope himself\n in his letters to Pepin, all speak of the negociations between\n the king and the pope as having reference simply to Rome and\n Ravenna. And since all attempts to reconcile these contradictions\n by exegetical devices have failed, we can only regard this\n as a fiction designed to palm off upon Louis of France Rome\u2019s\n own ambitious territorial scheme. All that Charlemagne did was\n to confirm and renew his father\u2019s gifts, as Hadrian himself\n distinctly states: _Amplius_ (=further, _i.e._ for time to\n come) _confirmavit_.--Moreover Pepin, and still more Charlemagne,\n would hardly have granted to the holy father by his gift\n absolute sovereignty over the States of the Church thus founded.\n By conferring the patriciate upon the two Frankish princes,\n the pope, indeed, himself acknowledged that the suzerainty\n now belonged to them which formerly the Byzantine emperor\n had exercised by his viceroy, the exarch of Ravenna. A more\n exact definition of these rights, however, may have been first\n given when Charles was crowned emperor, his imperial authority\n undoubtedly extending over the Papal States. The pope as a\n temporal prince was his vassal and must himself, like all\n citizens of Rome, take the oath of allegiance to the emperor.\n Judicial authority and the appointment of government officials\n belonged to him; but they were supervised and controlled by\n the Frankish ambassadors, _Missi dominici_, who heard appeals\n and complaints of all kinds and were authorized to give a final\n judgment.\n\n \u00a7 82.3. =Charlemagne and Leo III.=--Hadrian I. was succeeded by\n =Leo III.=, A.D. 795-816. During a solemn procession in A.D. 799\n he was murderously attacked by the nephews of his predecessor\n and severely beaten. Some of the bystanders declared that they\n had seen the bandits tear out his tongue and eyes. The legend\n vouched for by the pope himself was added that Peter by a miracle\n restored him both the next night. Leo meanwhile escaped from\n his tormentors and fled to Charlemagne. His opponents accused\n him before the king of perjury and adultery, and the hearing of\n witnesses seems to have confirmed the serious charges, for Alcuin\n hastened to burn the report which was given in to him on the\n subject. But the pope was honourably discharged and assumed again\n the chair of Peter under the protection of a Frankish guard.\n Next year Charles crossed the Alps with his army for a campaign\n against Benevento. He convened a Synod at Rome; but the bishops\n maintained that the pope, the head of all, can be judged of none;\n yet the pope with twelve sponsors swore an oath of purgation and\n prayed for his accusers. At the Christmas festival Charles went\n to the church of St. Peter. At the close of Mass the pope amid\n the applause of the people placed a beautiful golden crown upon\n his head (A.D. 800). The world is asked to believe that he did\n it by the immediate impulse of a divine inspiration; but it was\n the result of the negociations of years and the fulfilment of\n a promise by which the pope had purchased the king\u2019s protection\n against his enemies. With the idea of the imperial power\n Charlemagne connected the idea of a theocratic Christian\n universal monarchy in the sense of Daniel\u2019s prophecy. The\n Greeks had proved themselves unworthy of this position and\n so God had transferred it to the king of the Franks. As emperor,\n Charles stands at the head of all Christendom, and has only\n God and His law over him. He is the most obedient son, the most\n devoted servant of the church, so far as it is the vehicle and\n dispenser of salvation; but he is its supreme lord and ruler so\n far as it needs to adopt earthly forms and an earthly government.\n Church and state are two separate domains, which, however, on all\n sides limit and condition one another. Their uniting head they\n have in the person of the emperor. Hence on every hand Charles\u2019\n legislation enters the domain of the church, in respect of her\n constitution, worship and doctrine. On these matters he consults\n the bishops and synods, but he confirms, enlarges and modifies\n their decisions according to his own way of thinking, because for\n this he is personally answerable to God. In the pope he honours\n the successor of Peter and the spiritual head of the church;\n but, because the emperor stands over church and state, he is also\n ruler of the pope. The pope who gave him imperial consecration\n did it not by any power of his own immanent in the papacy, but\n by special divine impulse and authority. Hence the crowning\n of the emperor is only to be once received at the pope\u2019s hand.\n This rank is henceforth hereditary in the house of Charles, and\n only the emperor can beget and nominate the new emperor. The\n unity of the empire is to be maintained under all circumstances,\n and hence, contrary to the Frankish custom of dividing the\n inheritance, younger sons are to receive only the subordinate\n rank of ruling princes.[228]\n\n \u00a7 82.4. =Louis the Pious and the Popes of his\n Time.=--Charlemagne\u2019s weaker son Louis the Pious, A.D. 814-840,\n was not in a position to carry out the work his father had begun.\n But pious as Louis was, he was yet as little inclined as his\n immediate successor to give up the imperial suzerainty over\n the city and chair of St. Peter. The popes were most expressly\n required before receiving papal consecration to obtain imperial\n confirmation of their election. Leo\u2019s successor =Stephen IV.=,\n A.D. 816-817, seems indeed to have evaded it, yet still he let\n the Romans take the oath of fealty to the emperor, and unasked\n submitted to make a journey over the Alps in order to get over\n the anomaly of an emperor without the consecration of Peter\u2019s\n hand. An agreement come to on that occasion, A.D. 816, between\n emperor and pope has not been preserved. A few days after\n his return the pope died. The newly-elected =Paschalis I.=,\n A.D. 817-824, also indeed mounted the papal chair without\n imperial confirmation, but apologized by an embassy on the ground\n that he had been unwillingly obliged to act so, and praying for a\n continuation of the agreement made with his predecessor, to which\n the emperor consented. Indeed, according to a diploma of A.D. 817,\n extant only in a transcript, bearing the name of Louis, the\n king was to bestow upon the papal chair, besides what Pepin and\n Charlemagne had given, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily, and many\n estates in Calabria and Naples. There was also an undertaking\n that only after having been consecrated should any newly-elected\n pope interchange friendly greetings with the emperor. All copies\n of this document can be traced back to a collection of imperial\n grants to the Romish church of the 11th century. At its basis\n there lay probably a genuine document, but it has been variously\n altered in the interests of the high church party.--Some years\n later, after he had decoyed to France and blinded his illegitimate\n nephew Bernard, who had as reigning prince in Italy rebelled\n against the law of succession passed in A.D. 817, Louis sent his\n son Lothair into Italy to quiet the tumults there, and the pope\n availed himself of this opportunity to crown the prince already\n crowned by his father as co-emperor. But scarcely had Lothair\n got over the Alps again when two of the most distinguished and\n zealous of the Frankish partisans were in A.D. 823 blinded and\n beheaded in the papal palace. Before the imperial commission\n the pope took an oath of purgation, to which 34 bishops and\n 5 presbyters joined with him in swearing, but bluntly refused\n to deliver up the perpetrator of the deed. As the pope died soon\n afterwards, Lothair was sent a second time to Rome, in order\n to enforce once and for all upon his successor =Eugenius II.=,\n A.D. 824-827, the observance of imperial rights. The result of\n their conference was the so-called _Constitutio Romano_, by which\n the election of the pope (\u00a7 46, 11) was taken from the common\n people and given to the clergy and nobles, but the consecration\n was made dependent on the emperor\u2019s confirmation and an oath\n of homage from the newly-elected pope (A.D. 824). Nevertheless\n his successor Valentine was elected and consecrated without any\n reference to the constitution. He died, however, after six months,\n and now the Frankish party came forward so energetically that\n the new pope =Gregory IV.=, A.D. 827-844, was obliged to submit\n in all particulars to the requirements of the law. But soon\n after political troubles arose in the Frankish kingdom which\n could not fail to contribute to the endeavours of the papacy\n after emancipation. From his weak preference for his younger\n son, Charles the Bald, born of a second marriage, Louis was\n led in A.D. 829 to set aside the law of succession he himself\n had issued in A.D. 817. The sons thus disinherited rebelled with\n the assistance of the most distinguished Frankish prelates, at\n whose head was Wala, abbot of Old Corbie, cousin of Charlemagne,\n and the bishops Agobard of Lyons, Ebo of Rheims, etc., as\n assertors of the unity of the empire. Also pope Gregory IV.,\n whose predecessors had sanctioned the law of succession now set\n aside, was won over and was taken across the Alps by Lothair to\n strengthen his cause by the weight of his apostolic authority.\n The pope threatened with the ban those bishops who remained true\n to the old emperor and had obeyed his summons to attend the diet.\n But they answered the pope that he had no authority in the empire\n of the Franks, and that if he did not quietly take himself over\n the Alps again they would excommunicate him. He was inclined to\n yield, but Wala\u2019s counsel restrained him. He answered the bishops\n earnestly and moderately, and, as a last attempt at conciliation,\n went himself personally to the camp of the emperor, but was\n unable to effect anything. But next morning Louis had no army;\n during the night most of his soldiers had passed over to the camp\n of his enemy. The emperor now had to surrender himself prisoner\n to his son Lothair, then at a diet at Compi\u00e8gne in A.D. 833,\n to do humble penance in church and to resign the government. His\n penitent son, Louis the German, however, set him free in A.D. 834.\n A severe judgment was now passed upon the confederate prelates at\n the Diedenhosen in A.D. 835. But the brothers continued constantly\n at war with one another, and Louis the Pious did not live to see\n the end of it.\n\n \u00a7 82.5. =The Sons of Louis the Pious and the Popes of their\n Days.=--The Treaty of Verdun, A.D. 843, put an end to the bitter\n war between the sons of Louis the Pious, and made of the western\n empire three independent groups of states under Lothair, Louis\n the German and Charles the Bald. Lothair I., who got the title\n of Emperor with Italy and a strip of land between Neustria and\n Austrasia, died in A.D. 855. Of his sons, Louis II. inherited\n Italy with title of Emperor, Lothair II. the province called\n after him Lotharingia, _Lotharii regnum_, and Charles Burgundy\n and Provence. Lothair and Charles died in A.D. 869 soon after one\n another without heirs, and before the emperor Louis II. could lay\n his hands upon their territories they were seized by the uncle.\n By the treaty of Mersen, A.D. 870, Charles took the Romanic, and\n Louis the German took the German portions. Thus was completed\n the partition of the Carolingian empire into three parts\n distinguished as homogeneous groups of states by language\n and nationality: Germany, France and Italy.--Gregory IV. had\n survived the overthrow of the universal monarchy of Charlemagne.\n His successor, =Sergius II.=, A.D. 844-847, did not observe\n the obligations devolving on him by the _Constitutio Romana_.\n But Lothair I. was not inclined to let pass this slight to\n his imperial authority. His son Louis was sent into Italy with\n a powerful army, and obliged the pope and the Romans to take\n the oaths of fealty to his father with the promise not again to\n consecrate a pope before they had the emperor\u2019s consent. But the\n next pope =Leo IV.=, A.D. 847-855, was also consecrated without\n it, but excused himself from the circumstances of the age,\n the pressure of the Saracens, while making humble professions\n of most dutiful obedience. His successor =Benedict III.=,\n A.D. 855-858, did not regard the imperial consent as necessary,\n and the anti-pope set up by the French party could not maintain\n his position.\n\n \u00a7 82.6. =The Legend of the Female Pope Joanna.=--Between Leo IV.\n and Benedict III. is inserted an old legend of the pontificate\n of a woman, the so-called female pope Joanna: A maiden from Mainz\n went in man\u2019s clothes with her lover to Athens, obtained there\n great learning, then appeared at Rome as Joannes Anglicus,\n was elected pope, but having become pregnant by one of her\n chamberlains, was seized with labour pains in the midst of a\n solemn procession and died soon after, having been pope under\n the name of John VIII. for two years, five months and four days.\n This story was widely credited from the 13th to the 17th century,\n but its want of historical foundation is proved by the following\n facts:\n\n 1. The immediate succession of Benedict III. to Leo. IV. has\n contemporary testimony from the _Annales Bertiniani_ of\n A.D. 855, also from a letter of Hincmar to Nicholas I.,\n Benedict\u2019s successor, as well as the inscription \u201cBenedict\u201d\n and \u201cLothair,\u201d on a Roman denarius of the same year.\n\n 2. Neither Photius nor Michael C\u00e6rularius, who certainly would\n not have failed to make a handle of such a papal scandal\n (\u00a7 67), know anything of the matter.\n\n 3. The first certain trace of the existence of such a legend\n is found about A.D. 1230 in Stephen of Bourbon, yet there\n indeed the words are added: _Ut dicitur in chronicis_; but\n he makes the female pope mount St. Peter\u2019s chair only about\n A.D. 1100, knows neither her name nor her native country,\n and describes the catastrophe of her overthrow differently\n from the legend current in later times.\n\n 4. On the other hand, the existence of her biography in the\n _Liber pontificalis_ between that of Leo IV. and that of\n Benedict III., was regarded down to the 17th century as\n the oldest and indeed almost contemporary witness to the\n historicity of the female pope. It is wanting, however, in\n the oldest and best MSS. and must therefore be considered\n a later interpolation. This also applies to the reference\n made thereto by Marianus Sectus (d. A.D. 1086), Sigbert of\n Semblours (d. A.D. 1113), Otto of Friesingen (d. A.D. 1158),\n and Godfrey of Viterbo (about A.D. 1190). Even in the oldest\n MSS. of the Chronicle of the Roman penitentiary Martinus\n Polonus (d. A.D. 1278) we read nothing of the female pope;\n yet the story must soon have been inserted there, for\n Tolomeo of Lucca about A.D. 1312 affirms in his Church\n History, that all writers whom he had read, with the single\n exception of Martin, made Benedict III. follow immediately\n after Leo IV. Perhaps Martin himself in a second enlarged\n edition of his chronicle had inserted a biography of the\n female pope, which he might do with the less hesitation\n if it was true that the pope of his own time John XX.,\n A.D. 1276-1277, thought it wrong not to count the female\n pope and so styled himself John XXI. From that time all\n chroniclers of the Middle Ages without the slightest\n expression of doubt repeated the legend in essentially the\n same way as Martin\u2019s chronicle and the _Liber pontificalis_\n report it. The Reformed theologian, David Blondel, in\n A.D. 1649, performed a service to the Catholic church\n by his elaborate critical treatment of the legend which\n destroyed all belief in its historicity. After this, however,\n it was again vindicated by Spanheim (_Opp._ ii. 577) and\n Kist; and even Hase regards it as still conceivable that\n the church which has affirmed the existence of things that\n never were, may have denied the existence of things that\n were, if the knowledge of it might prove hazardous to the\n interests of the papacy.\n\n The origin and gradual development of the legend, about the\n middle of the 12th century and certainly in Rome, may be most\n simply explained with D\u00f6llinger from a combination of the\n following data.\n\n 1. From the time of Paschalis II. in A.D. 1099 it was customary\n for the new pope in the solemn Lateran procession when\n having his entrance on office attested to sit upon two\n old chairs standing in the Lateran with pierced seats,\n which probably came from an old Roman bath. But the popular\n wit of the Romans suggested another reason for the pierced\n seats. The chairs were thus pierced in order that before the\n consecration a deacon might satisfy himself of the manhood\n of the new pope; for, it would be added by and by, a woman\n in disguise was once made pope, etc.\n\n 2. In a street of Rome was found a statue in white robes with\n a child and an enigmatical inscription, the letter P six\n times repeated which some read: _Parce pater patrum papiss\u00e6\n prodere partum_, others: _Papa pater patrum peperit papissa\n papellum_; so that this statue was supposed to represent the\n female pope with her child.\n\n 3. Further the papal processions between the Lateran and the\n Vatican at a point where the direct way was too narrow were\n wont to diverge into another wider street; this was done, it\n was now said, because at this place the catastrophe referred\n to had befallen the female pope.\n\n 4. That the name Joannes was given to the female pope is easily\n explained from the frequency of this name among the popes.\n In A.D. 1024 it had been already held by nineteen. And that\n she who had brought such a disgrace upon the papacy should\n have been described as a native of the German city of Mainz,\n is explained from national antipathy entertained by the\n Italians for everything German.\n\n 5. Finally, the most difficult part of the problem, why this\n episode should have been inserted just between Leo IV. and\n Benedict III., may perhaps find satisfactory solution in the\n supposition that the legend may have been first introduced\n as an appendix to a codex of the _Liber ponficalis_ which\n closed with the biography of Leo IV.[229]\n\n \u00a7 82.7. =Nicholas I. and Hadrian II.=--The successor of\n Benedict III., =Nicholas I.=, A.D. 858-867, was chosen with\n the personal concurrence of the emperor Louis II. then in\n Rome. This pope was undoubtedly the greatest of all the popes\n between Gregory I. and Gregory VII. He was a man of inflexible\n determination, clear insight and subtle intellect, who, favoured\n by the political movement of the age, supported by public opinion\n which regarded him as a second Elijah, and finally backed up in\n his endeavours after papal supremacy by the Isidorian collection\n of decretals just now brought forward (\u00a7 87, 2), could give\n prestige and glory to the struggle for law, truth and discipline.\n Among the many battles of his life none brought him more credit\n and renown than that with Lothair II. of Lothringia. That\n he might marry his mistress Waldrade, Lothair accused his\n wife Thielberga of committing incest before her marriage with\n her brother, abbot Hucbert, and of having obtained abortion\n to conceal her wickedness. Before a civil tribunal she was in\n A.D. 858 acquitted by submitting to a divine ordeal, the boiling\n caldron ordeal which a servant undertook for her. But Lothair\n treated her so badly that at last, in order simply to be rid of\n her tormentors, she confessed herself guilty of the crime charged\n against her before a Synod at Aachen in A.D. 859 attended by the\n two Lothringian metropolitans G\u00fcnther of Cologne and Thietgaut\n of Treves, and expressed the wish that she should atone for\n her sins in a cloister. But soon she regretted this step and\n fled to Charles the Bald in Neustria. A second Synod at Aachen\n in A.D. 860 now declared the marriage with Thielberga null,\n and Lothair formally married Waldrade. Meanwhile the Neustria\n metropolitan Hincmar of Rheims had published an opinion in\n respect of civil and ecclesiastical law (_De divortio Lotharii_)\n wholly favourable to the ill-used queen, and she herself had\n referred the matter to the pope. Nicholas sent two Italian\n bishops, one of whom was Rhodoald of Porto (\u00a7 67, 1), to\n Lothringia to investigate the affair. These took bribes and\n decided at the Synod of Metz in A.D. 863 in favour of the\n king. But Nicholas annulled the decisions of the Council,\n excommunicated his legates and deposed the two Lothringian\n metropolitans who had vainly trusted to the omnipotence of\n Lothringian gold in Rome. Thirsting for revenge they incited\n the emperor Louis II., Lothair\u2019s brother, against the pope.\n He besieged Rome, but came to an understanding with the pope\n through his wife\u2019s mediation. Lothair, detested by his subjects,\n threatened with war by his uncles Louis of Germany and Charles\n the Bald as champions of the childless Thielberga, repented and\n besought the pope for grace and protection from the ambitious\n designs of his uncles. Nicholas now sent a legate, Arsenius,\n across the Alps, who acting as plenipotentiary in all three\n kingdoms, obliged Lothair to take back Thielberga and put away\n Waldrade. But she flung herself upon him and in her arms Lothair\n soon forgot the promise to which he had sworn. At the same time\n he reconciled himself to his uncles whose zeal had somewhat\n cooled in presence of the lordly conduct of the papal legate.\n Thielberga now herself sought divorce from the pope. But Nicholas\n continued firmly to insist upon his demands. His successor\n =Hadrian II.=, A.D. 867-872, an old man of seventy-five years,\n could only gradually emancipate himself from the imperial party\n which had elected him and taken him under its protection. He\n received back again the two excommunicated metropolitans, without,\n however, restoring them to their offices, released Waldrade\n from church discipline, and always put off granting Thielberga\u2019s\n reiterated request for divorce. Lothair now went himself to\n Rome, took a solemn oath that he had no carnal intercourse with\n Waldrade since the restoration of his wife, and received the\n sacrament from the pope\u2019s hand. Full of hope that he would get\n success in his object he started for home, but died at Piacenza\n of a violent fever in A.D. 869. When dead the uncles pounced\n upon the kingdom. Hadrian used all his influence in favour of\n the emperor, the legitimate heir, and threatened his opponents\n with excommunication. But Hincmar of Rheims composed a state\n paper by order of his king, in which he told the pope that the\n opinion of France was that he should not interfere with things\n about which he knew nothing. The pope was obliged to let this\n insult pass unrevenged. In a dispute of his own Hincmar succeeded\n in giving the pope a second rebuff (\u00a7 83, 2).[230]\n\n \u00a7 82.8. =John VIII. and his Successors.=--His successor\n =John VIII.=, A.D. 872-882, was more successful than Hadrian\n in bringing the Carolingian king to kneel at his footstool.\n In the art of intrigue and in the perfidy, hypocrisy and\n unconscionableness required therefor, he was, however, greatly\n superior. He succeeded almost completely in freeing the papal\n chair from the imperial authority. But he did so only to make it\n a playball of the wildest party interests around his own hearth.\n To his account mainly must be laid the unfathomable degradation\n and debasement of the papacy during the 10th century. When the\n emperor Louis II. died in A.D. 875, Louis the German, as elder\n and full brother of his father, ought to have been his heir.\n But the pope wished to show the world that the papal favour\n could make a gift of the imperial crown to whomsoever it chose.\n Accepting his invitation, Charles the Bald appeared in Rome and\n was crowned by the pope on Christmas Day, A.D. 875. But he had\n to pay dearly for the papal favour, by formally renouncing all\n claims to the rights of superior over the States of the Church,\n allow for the future absolute freedom in the election of popes,\n and accept a papal representative and clerical primate for all\n France and Germany. But not altogether satisfied with this,\n the pope made the new emperor submit himself to a formal act\n of election by the Lombards of Pavia, and in order to secure\n the approval of his own nobles to his proceedings he even agreed\n to give them the right of election. The Neustrian clergy, however,\n with Hincmar at their head, offered a vigorous resistance and\n at the first Synod at Pontion in A.D. 876 there were violent\n altercations. The shameful compromise satisfied neither pope\n nor emperor. In Rome a wild party faction gained ground against\n the pope, and the Saracens pressed further and further into Italy.\n From the emperor, who knew not how to keep back the advances of\n the Normans in his own country, no help could be expected. Yet\n he made hasty preparations, purchased a dishonourable peace\n from the Normans, and crossed the Alps. But new troubles at\n home imperiously called him back, and at the foot of Mount Cenis\n in A.D. 877, he died in a miserable hut of poison administered\n by his physician, a Jew. The pope got into yet greater straits\n and made his position worse by further intrigues. Also his\n negotiations with Byzantium in A.D. 879 involved him in yet\n more serious troubles (\u00a7 67, 1). He died in A.D. 882, apparently\n by the hand of an assassin. A year before his death Charles\n the Fat, the youngest son of Louis the German, had been crowned\n emperor, and he, the least capable of all the Carolingian line,\n by the choice of the Neustrian nobles, united once more all the\n Frankish empire under his weak sceptre. Marinus, the successor\n of John VIII., died after a single year\u2019s pontificate. So\n was it, too, with Hadrian III. And now the Romans, without\n paying any heed to the impotent wrath of the emperor, elected\n and consecrated =Stephen V.=, A.D. 885-891, as their pope. In\n A.D. 857 the German nobles at last put an end to the despicable\n rule of the fat Charles by passing an act of formal deposition.\n They chose in his place Arnulf of Carinthia, a natural son of\n Charles\u2019 brother Carloman. Pope =Formosus=, A.D. 891-896, called\n him to his assistance in A.D. 894, and crowned him emperor. But\n he could not hold his ground in Italy and the opposition emperor\n Lambert, a Longobard, had possession of the field. Formosus died\n soon after Arnulf\u2019s withdrawal. Boniface VI., who died after\n fifteen days, was succeeded by =Stephen VI.= in A.D. 896. This\n man, infected by Italian fanaticism, had the body of Formosus,\n who had favoured the Germans, lifted from the grave, shamefully\n abused and then thrown into the Tiber. The three following popes\n reigned only a few weeks or months, and were either murdered\n or driven away. John IX., A.D. 898-900, in order to pacify the\n German party, honoured again the memory of Formosus.--Arnulf\u2019s\n tenure of the empire, however, had only been a short vain dream;\n but in Germany during a trying period he wielded the sceptre\n with power and dignity. When he died in A.D. 899, the German\n nobles elected his seven-year-old son, Louis the Child. He\n died in A.D. 911, and with him the dynasty of the Carolingians\n in Germany became extinct. In France this line continued to\n exist in pitiable impotence down to the death of Louis V. in\n A.D. 987.--Continuation, \u00a7 96.\n\n \u00a7 82.9. =The Papacy and the Nationalities.=[231]--From the\n time of Charlemagne the policy of the French kings was to\n establish bishoprics on the frontiers of their territories\n for Christianizing the neighbouring heathen countries, and\n thereby securing their conquest, or, if this had been already\n won, confirming it. The first part of this purpose the popes\n could only approve and further, but just as decidedly they\n opposed the second. There must be a reference to the chair\n of Peter, that the pope may maintain and preserve as head of\n the universal church the rights of nationalities. Each country\n won to Christianity should be received into the organism of the\n church with its national position unimpaired, and so under the\n spiritual fatherhood of the pope there would be established\n a Christian family of states, of which each member occupies\n a position of perfect equality with the others. In this way\n the interests of humanity, and at the same time, the selfish\n interests of papal policy, were secured. This policy was\n therefore directed to the emancipating as soon as possible\n the newly founded national churches from the supremacy of the\n German clergy and giving them an independent national church\n organization under bishops and archbishops of their own.\n\n\n \u00a7 83. THE RANK OF METROPOLITAN.[232]\n\n The position of metropolitan was not regarded with equal favour in\nthe German church and in the German state. Amid the variety of races\nthe metropolitans represented the unity of the national church, as\nthe pope did that of the universal church, while at the same time\nas an estate of the empire they exercised great influence on civil\nadministration and foreign policy. The reigning princes recognised\nin the unity of the ecclesiastical administration of the country a\nsupport and security for the political unity and therefore opposed\nthe partition of the national church into several metropolitanates,\nor, where the larger extension of the empire required several\narchbishoprics, wished rather to give the ablest of these the rank\nand authority of a primate. The popes on the other hand endeavoured to\ngive each of the larger countries at least two or three metropolitans,\nand to prevent as far as possible the appointment of a national church\nprimate; for in the unity of the national church they perceived the\ndanger of such a prelate sooner or later giving way to the desire to\nemancipate himself from Rome and secure for himself the position of an\nindependent patriarch.\n\n \u00a7 83.1. =The Position of Metropolitans in General.=--As\n representing the unity of the national churches the interests\n of the metropolitans were bound up with those of the ruling\n princes. They were the most vigorous supporters of their policy,\n and generally got in return the prince\u2019s hearty support. This\n coalition of the metropolitans and the civil power, however,\n threatened the subordinate clergy with abject servitude, and\n drove them to champion the interests of the pope. Through\n pressure of circumstances, a widespread conspiracy of bishops\n and abbots was formed during the last years of Louis the Pious\n to emancipate the clergy and especially the episcopate from\n the dominion of the state and the metropolitans and to place\n them immediately under the papal jurisdiction. They founded upon\n the Isidorian decretals as showing their rights in the earliest\n times (\u00a7 87, 2). Their endeavour met indeed powerful opposition,\n but the statements of the Pseudo-Isidore had now obtained the\n validity of canon law.\n\n \u00a7 83.2. =Hincmar of Rheims.=--Among the =French= prelates\n after the restoration of the order of metropolitans by Boniface\n the first place was held by the occupant of the see of Rheims.\n It reached the summit of its glory under Hincmar of Rheims,\n A.D. 845-882, the ablest of all the ecclesiastical leaders of\n France. His life consists of an uninterrupted series of battles\n of the most varied kind. The first fight in which he engaged was\n the predestination controversy of Gottschalk (\u00a7 91, 5). But his\n strength did not lie in dogmatics but in church government. And\n here, every inch a metropolitan, he has fought the most glorious\n battles of his life and affirmed, against the assumptions of\n popes and emancipation efforts of bishops, the autonomy of\n reigning princes, the freedom and independence of national\n churches, and the jurisdiction of metropolitans. Of this sort\n was his contest with bishop Rothad of Soissons. Hincmar had\n deposed him in A.D. 861 for insubordination. Rothad appealed to\n pope Nicholas I. on the ground of the Sardican Canon (\u00a7 46, 3),\n which, however, had never been accepted in the Frankish Empire.\n He had at the same time referred the pope to the Isidorian\n decretals. Thus supported, Nicholas after a hard struggle had\n Rothad reinstated in A.D. 865. The insolent defiance of his\n own nephew, Hincmar, bishop of Laon, led the archbishop into\n another obstinate fight. Here too the Isidorian decretals played\n a prominent part. Hadrian II. in A.D. 869 took the side of the\n nephew, but the metropolitan gained the victory, and the nephew,\n who defied the king as well as the metropolitan and moreover had\n entered into treasonable communication with the German court,\n ended his course by being deprived of his eyes by the king. Down\n to A.D. 875 Hincmar was inflexibly true to the king as a pillar\n of his policy and his throne. But when Charles the Bald in\n that year paid down as purchase price for the imperial throne,\n not only the autonomy of the empire but also the freedom of the\n French church and the rights of the metropolitans, he was obliged\n now to turn his weapons against him. Hincmar died in A.D. 882\n in flight before the Normans. With him the glory of the French\n archbishopric sank into its grave. The pseudo-Isidorian party\n had triumphed, the bishops were emancipated from the government\n of the princes of their country, but instead of this were often\n surrendered to the rude caprice of secular nobles.\n\n \u00a7 83.3. =Metropolitans in other lands.=--The =English= princes\n in the interests of the political unity of the Heptarchy for\n a long time withstood the endeavours of the popes to place a\n rival alongside of the archbishop of Canterbury. The action and\n reaction of these opposing interests were particularly strong\n in the time of Wilfrid (\u00a7 78, 3), whom the Roman party had\n appointed archbishop of York. Wilfrid was driven away and died\n in A.D. 709 after an eventful life, without succeeding in taking\n possession of the place to which he had been appointed. At last,\n however, the pope reached his end. In A.D. 735 a Northumbrian\n prince obtained a pallium, and after that the see of York got\n an undisputed place alongside that of Canterbury.--In =Northern\n Italy= there were metropolitan sees at Ravenna, Milan and\n Aquileia which still made their old claims to self-government\n (\u00a7 46, 1). Sergius, the prelate of Ravenna, about A.D. 760,\n thought it would be well out of the ruins of the exarchate to\n found an ecclesiastical state after the model of that of Rome.\n There was often opposition there to the Roman supremacy. On\n this account the violent archbishop John of Ravenna, who was\n also a defrauder of the church, suffered the most complete\n humiliation from Nicholas I. in A.D. 861, in spite of the\n emperor\u2019s protection. The force of public opinion compelled\n the emperor to abandon his prot\u00e9g\u00e9 when excommunicated by the\n pope. But during the pontificate of John VIII., Ausbert, prelate\n of Milan (died A.D. 882), who kept true to the German party,\n could defy papal anathema and deposition. His successor, however,\n again acknowledged the papal supremacy.--In =Germany=, since\n the time of Charlemagne, new metropolitan sees had been created\n at Salzburg, Cologne, Treves and Hamburg-Bremen. Mainz, however,\n still claimed the primacy and represented the unity of the German\n church. The Isidorian forgery availed not here as in the land of\n its birth to stop the contention of the archbishop. The German\n metropolitanate to the advantage of the empire maintained its\n rights untouched for centuries. Among the primates of Mainz\n the most important by far was =Hatto I.=, A.D. 891-913. Even\n under Arnulf (died A.D. 899), whose most trusted adviser he\n was, he exercised a wide as well as wholesome influence on the\n administration of the empire. It was still greater under Louis\n the Child (died A.D. 911) whom he raised to the throne and for\n whom he acted as regent. Conrad I. (\u00a7 96, 1) also owed to him\n his election as king of the Germans. In the internal affairs\n of the German church, he directed and adjusted, organized and\n ruled in this time of general upheaval with wonderful insight,\n wisdom and energy, most conspicuously, and that too against\n papal assumptions, at the great national synod of Tribur in\n A.D. 895. The primate regarded it as a political axiom, that,\n in order to conserve and advance the unity of the empire, the\n particularism of the several races and the struggles of their\n chiefs and princes for independence should be crushed. Owing to\n the consistency and energy with which he carried out his idea,\n he did indeed make many enemies. The stories of insidious perfidy\n and bloody violence which have attached themselves to his memory\n are to all appearance due to their calumnious hatred. His sudden\n death probably gave rise to the legend that the devil fetched\n him away and cast him into the mouth of Etna. To him, and not\n to the much less important Hatto II., who died in A.D. 970, is\n the other equally baseless legend of the M\u00e4usethurm near Bingen\n to be referred.--Continuation, \u00a7 97, 2.\n\n\n \u00a7 84. THE CLERGY IN GENERAL.[233]\n\n The bishops subject to the archbishop were called diocesan bishops,\nor, as voting members of the Provincial Synod, suffragan bishops. The\ncanonical election of bishops by the people and clergy was completely\ndone away with in the German national church. Kings without opposition\nfilled vacant bishoprics according to their own choice. Louis the\nPious at the Synod of Aachen, in A.D. 817, restored canonical election\nby people and clergy, subject to the emperor\u2019s confirmation, but\nhis successors paid no attention to the law. Deposition was usually\ncarried out by the Provincial and National Synods. The investiture of\nbishops with pastoral staff and marriage ring by the reigning prince\nis occasionally met with even in the Merovingian age and became general\nafter the development of the benefice system in the 9th century. Out\nof the institution of bishops without dioceses, _Episcopi regionarii_,\noriginally intended for missionary service, arose in all probability\nthe institution of _Chorepiscopi_ which flourished especially in\nFrance during the 8th and 9th centuries. With the old _Chorepiscopi_\n(\u00a7 34, 2; \u00a7 45) they have nothing in common beyond the name. They\nwere subordinate assistants of the diocesan bishops, whose convenience,\nunspirituality and often absence on state affairs demanded such\nsubstitutes. But by their arbitrary conduct and refractoriness they\noften gave great trouble to those bishops who had any care for their\nflock. A Synod at Paris, therefore, in A.D. 849, withdrew all authority\nfrom them. From that time they gradually sank out of view. The inferior\nclergy, taken generally from the serfs, stood mostly in slavish\ndependence on the bishop and often had not the barest necessaries\nof culture. Their appointment lay with the bishop, yet the founder of\na church and his successors frequently retained the right of patronage\nin choosing their own officiating clergymen.[234] Especially in the\nlater Merovingian and earlier Carolingian periods, the Frankish clergy,\nsuperior and inferior, had become terribly corrupt. Boniface was the\nfirst to reintroduce some sort of discipline (\u00a7 78, 5) and Charlemagne\u2019s\npowerful government contributed in an extraordinary measure to the\nennobling of the clergy. Yet the corruption was too general and too\ngreat to be altogether eradicated. Louis the Pious, therefore, in\nA.D. 816, extended to the whole kingdom a reformation which Chrodegang\nof Metz had introduced fifty years previously among his own clergy, by\nwhich means discipline and order were again improved for some decades.\nBut in the troublous times of the last Carolingians everything went\nagain into confusion and decay. Exemption from civil jurisdiction\nwas accorded the clergy during this period only to this extent, that\nthe secular courts could not proceed against a clergyman without the\nadvice of the bishop, and the bishop himself was subject only to the\njurisdiction of the king and the Provincial Synod.\n\n \u00a7 84.1. =The Superior Clergy.=--In the German states from\n the earliest times the superior clergy constituted a spiritual\n aristocracy which by means of their higher culture won a more\n influential position in civil life than the secular nobles. In\n all important affairs of state the bishops were the advisers of\n the king; they were almost exclusively employed on embassies; on\n all commissions there were clerical members and always one half\n of the _Missi dominici_ were clerics. This nearness to the person\n of the king and their importance in civil life made them rank as\n one of the estates of the realm. The Frankish idea of immunity,\n in consequence of which by royal gift along with the rights of\n territorial lords there were handed over to the new proprietors\n also the princely right of levying taxes and administering\n justice, brought to them secular as well as spiritual jurisdiction\n over a great part of the land. As the court of the Frankish\n king was moved from place to place, he required a special court,\n chapel, with a numerous court-clergy, at the head of which was\n an Arch-chaplain, usually the most distinguished prelate in\n the land. The names _Capella_ and _Capellani_ were originally\n applied only to court chapels and court chaplains, and were\n derived from the fact that in the chapel was kept the _Cappa_\n or coat of Martin of Tours as a precious relic and the national\n palladium of France. The court clergy formed the nursery for\n future bishops of the realm. In addition to the ring and staff\n as episcopal insignia we find in the Carolingian age the bishop\u2019s\n cap, consisting of two long sheets of tin or pasteboard running\n up to a peak, covered with silk of the same colour as the dress\n used in celebrating mass, generally richly ornamented with gold\n and precious stones, called by the old pagan name _Infula_ or\n _Mitra_.[235]\n\n \u00a7 84.2. =The Inferior Clergy.=--The enormous expansion of\n episcopal dioceses rendered a new arrangement of the =inferior\n clergy= indispensable. The extension churches in towns and the\n country churches which previously had been served by the clergy\n of the cathedral church, obtained a regular clergy of their\n own. As these churches were always dedicated to a saint they\n were called _Tituli_, and the clergy appointed to officiate in\n them, _Intitulati_, _Incardinati_, _Cardinales_. Thus originated\n the idea of _Parochia_, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1 and of _Parochus_ or parish\n priest,[236] who, because the _cura animarum_ was committed to\n him was also called Curate, as in the French cur\u00e9. Over about\n ten parishes was placed an _Archipresbyter ruralis_ who was\n called _Decanus_, Dean. As the right of administering baptism\n belonged originally to him exclusively, his church was called\n _Ecclesia baptisimalis_; his diocese, _Christianitas_ or _Plebs_;\n he himself also, _Plebanus_. A further arrangement was first\n introduced in the 8th century by Heddo of Strasburg [Strassburg],\n who gave to each of the deans in his diocese seven archdeacons,\n _pr\u00e6positi_, provosts. Besides the parish churches there were\n many chapels or oratories where divine service was conducted\n only at certain times by the neighbouring parish clergy or\n chaplains appointed for that purpose. To this class also belong\n the domestic chapels in episcopal residences or on the estates\n of noblemen which were served by special domestic or castle\n chaplains. The latter indeed had in addition the duty of feeding\n the dogs, waiting at table and taking charge of the lady\u2019s pony.\n Notwithstanding repeated reinforcement of the old law: _Ne quis\n vage ordinetur_, there was still a great number of so-called\n _Clericis vagis_, mostly vagabonds and idlers, who, ordained by\n unprincipled bishops for a reward, roamed over the country like\n clerical pedlars.\n\n \u00a7 84.3. =Compulsory Celibacy= was stoutly resisted by the German\n clergy. The inferior clergy were mostly married. At ordination\n they were ordered indeed to separate from their wives and to\n abstain from marital intercourse, but the promise was rarely\n fulfilled. Among the unmarried clergy, fornication, adultery\n and unnatural lust were prevalent. A bishop, Ulrich of Augsburg,\n addressed to Nicholas I. a philippic against the law of celibacy\n with fearless exposures of its evil consequences. The =moral\n condition= of the clergy was generally speaking shockingly low.\n Legacy hunting, forging of documents, simony and chaffering for\n benefices were carried on in a shameless way. The lordly habits\n of the bishops consisted in hunting, going about with dogs and\n falcons, and in wild drunken revels. In the 7th century it was\n the peculiar pleasure of the Frankish bishops in wild scenes\n of blood that induced them to take part in the wars, and led\n to their being afterwards obliged to fit out contingents for\n the field at the cost of their ecclesiastical revenues. Pepin,\n Charlemagne and Louis the Pious passed stringent laws against\n these warlike habits of churchmen; but the later Carolingians\n not only tolerated but actually encouraged them.\n\n \u00a7 84.4. =Canonical life.=--Augustine\u2019s institution of a\n _monasterii Clericorum_ (\u00a7 45, 1) was often imitated in later\n times. But bishop =Chrodegang of Metz=, who died in A.D. 766,\n gave it for the first time, about A.D. 760, a fixed and permanent\n form. His rule or _Canon_ is closely connected with the monastic\n rule of St. Benedict (\u00a7 85), with the omission of the vow of\n poverty. He built a commodious residence Domus, _monasterium_\n (comp. Germ. words Dom and M\u00fcnster), in which all the clergy of\n his cathedral church were obliged to live, pray, work, eat and\n sleep under the constant and strict supervision of the bishop\n or his archdeacon. This was the _Vita canonica_. After morning\n devotions all the members of the establishment gathered together\n in the hall where the bishop or provost read to them a chapter\n from the Bible, most frequently from Leviticus, from the rule or\n from the fathers, and added thereto the necessary explanations\n and exhortations. The hall was therefore called the Chapter House;\n then the name =Chapter=[237] was given to the whole body gathered\n together there. The =Colleges=[238] were a subsequent development\n of the chapter in non-episcopal city churches, with a provost\n or deacon at their head. Louis the Pious allowed Chrodegang\u2019s\n rule to be revived and generalized by the deacon Amalarius of\n Metz, and at the National Assembly at Aachen in A.D. 817 enforced\n it for the whole kingdom. It is known as _Regula Aquisgranensis_.\n But soon after the Canons endeavoured to emancipate themselves\n more and more from the burdensome yoke of episcopal control.\n Gunther of Cologne (\u00a7 82, 7) who, though deposed by the pope,\n retained his official position, was obliged to purchase the\n support of his chapter by a bargain in accordance with which\n a great part of the ecclesiastical revenues of the chapter were\n placed at their own full disposal as Prebends or Benefices. And\n what this one chapter gained for itself was afterwards contended\n for by others.[239]--Continuation, \u00a7 97, 3.\n\n\n \u00a7 85. MONASTICISM.[240]\n\n While from the 5th century one rush of migrating peoples was rapidly\nfollowed by another, the monkish orders fell into decay, barbarism and\ncorruption. They would scarcely have survived this period of commotion,\nat least would not have proved the great blessing that they have\nbeen to the German west, had not the spirit of ancient Rome with its\npractical turn, its appreciation of law and order and its organizing\ntalent, given them at the right time, what they hitherto wanted, a\nrule answering to the requirements and circumstances of the age, and\nby means of it firm footing, unity, order and legal form. This task was\naccomplished by =Benedict of Nursia= (d. A.D. 543), the patriarch of\nWestern Monasticism. The rule, which he prescribed in A.D. 529 to the\nmonks of the monastery of Monte Cassino in Campania founded by him, was\nnot unduly ascetic, combined strict discipline with a certain degree\nof mildness and indulgence, estimated the needs of human nature as well\nas the circumstances of the times, and was, in short, adaptable and\npractical. From the rule of Cassiodorus (\u00a7 47, 23) Benedict\u2019s disciples\nborrowed that zeal for scholarly studies about which their master had\ngiven no directions, and Gregory the Great inspired the order with\nenthusiasm for missionary labours. Thus the Benedictine order obtained\nits full consecration to its calling of worldwide significance. Soon\nspreading over all the West, being introduced into France by Maurus in\nA.D. 543, it nobly fulfilled its vocation by cultivating the soil and\nthe mind, by clearing the forests, bringing in waste lands, zealously\npreaching the gospel, rooting out superstition and paganism, educating\nthe young, fostering and restoring literature, science and art. The\nbarbarous age, however, which saw the overthrow of the Merovingians\nand the rise of the Carolingians, exerted a deteriorating influence\nalso on the Benedictines. But Charlemagne restored strict discipline,\nand assigned to the monasteries the task of erecting schools and\nprosecuting scholarly studies. By authority of Louis the Pious and\nby order of the National Assembly at Aachen in A.D. 817, =Benedict of\nAniane= undertook a reformation and re-organization of all the monkish\nsystems throughout the empire. At the head of a commission appointed\nfor that purpose he visited all the Frankish monasteries, and compelled\nthem to organize themselves after his improved Benedictine Rule.\n\n \u00a7 85.1. The one source of information regarding the life\n of =Benedict of Nursia= is the miracle-laden record of the\n miracle-loving pope Gregory the Great in the second book of\n his Dialogues. Benedict\u2019s =Rule= comprises 73 chapters. The\n first principle of the monastic life is obedience to the Abbot,\n as representative of Christ. The choice of abbot lies with the\n brothers. Of serving brothers the rule knows nothing. The chief\n occupation is agriculture. Idleness is strictly forbidden. Charge\n of the kitchen and reading at table are duties performed by all\n the monks in turn week about. Divine service begins at 3 a.m. and\n is rendered regularly through all the seven hours (\u00a7 56, 2). Two\n meals a day are partaken of and each monk has daily half a bottle\n of wine. Flesh meat is given only to the sick and weak. At table\n and after the _Completorium_ or last hour of prayer, no word\n was allowed to be spoken. All the brothers slept in a common\n dormitory, each in a separate bed, but completely dressed and\n girded, so as to be ready at call for matins. The discipline was\n strict and reasonable; first private, then public rebuke, then\n penal fasting, corporal punishment, and finally excommunication.\n Hospitality and attention to the poor were enjoined on all\n monasteries. Reception was preceded by a year\u2019s novitiate.\n The vow included _Stabilitas loci_, _Conversio morum_ (poverty\n and chastity) and _Obedientia_. The _Oblati_ were a special kind\n of novices, _i.e._ children who in their early youth were placed\n in the monastery by their parents. They were educated in the\n monastic schools and were not allowed to go back to the world.\n\n \u00a7 85.2. =Benedict of Aniane= (A.D. 821) was originally called\n Witiza and was the son of a Visigoth count. He had served as\n a soldier under Charlemagne. In attempting to save his brother\n he was himself almost drowned. His ambition was now directed\n to an ascetic life, in which his personal performances were\n most remarkable. On the river Anianus in Languedoc he founded\n in A.D. 779 the monastery of Aniane. He was the indispensable\n and all-powerful counsellor of Louis the Pious. In order to have\n him always near him, Louis founded for him the monastery of Inda\n or the Cornelius-M\u00fcnster near Aachen. In the interests of his\n cloister reform he published in A.D. 817 a _Codex regulorum_ in\n which he collected all the monastic rules previously known.\n\n \u00a7 85.3. The rule of the elder Benedict made no reference to\n =Nunneries=; but his sister Scholastica is regarded as the\n founder of the order of female Benedictines. Another form of\n female asceticism was developed after the model of the canonical\n life of the secular clergy in the institution of canonesses. The\n rule, which Louis the Pious at Aachen in A.D. 816 allowed them\n to draw up for themselves, is distinctly milder than that of\n the nuns. The ladies\u2019 orders gradually became places of resort\n for the unmarried daughters of the nobles. The canonical age for\n taking the nun\u2019s vows was twenty-five. The novitiate lasted three\n years. Besides the _propria professio_ the _paterna devotio_ was\n also regarded as binding. In regard to dress the adoption of the\n veil was the main thing; but in addition they wore the wreath as\n a symbol of virginity and the ring as token of spiritual marriage.\n At this time the cutting of the hair was only a punishment for\n unchaste nuns. The honourable position of the wife among the\n Germans secured special respect for the abbess, and obtained\n for the most famous nunneries exemption, civil prerogatives and\n proprietary, even princely rights. The frequent appearance of\n =Double-Cloisters= where monks and nuns, naturally in separate\n dwellings, under a common rule either of an abbess as often in\n England, or of an abbot, was also peculiarly German.\n\n \u00a7 85.4. =The Greater Monasteries=, formed as they were of a vast\n number of separate buildings for agriculture, cattle rearing,\n handicraft and arts of all kinds, for elementary teaching, for\n higher education, for hospitable entertainment, caring for the\n sick, etc., came by and by to attain the proportions of little\n towns. Frequently they were the centre around which cities were\n raised. The monastery of Vivarium in Calabria, Cassiodorus\u2019\n foundation, inspired Western monasticism with an enthusiasm\n for scholarly studies. The regulations of Monte Cassino were\n extended to all monasteries of the West. Columbanus\u2019 monastery\n of Bobbio rooted out paganism and Arianism in northern Italy. The\n monasteries of Iona in Scotland and Bangor in Ireland gained high\n repute in the struggle of the Celtic church against the Roman.\n The English monastery of Wearmouth was a famous school of science.\n In France St. Denys near Paris and Old Corbei in Picardy gained\n a high reputation. In South Germany St. Gall, Reichenau, Lorsch\n and Hirschau, in Central Germany Fulda, Hersfeld and Fritzlar,\n and in North Germany New Corbei, a branch from Old Corbei, were\n main centres of Christian culture.\n\n \u00a7 85.5. In its new Western form also monasticism was still\n without the clerical character. But there was an ever-increasing\n tendency to draw the monastic and the clerical institutions\n more and more closely together. By means of celibacy and\n the introduction of the canonical life (\u00a7 84, 4) the clergy\n came to have the monkish character, and on the other hand,\n most of the monks, in the first instance for monastic and\n mission services, took clerical orders. By and by monks sought\n appointments as curates (\u00a7 84, 2), and thus rivalries arose\n between them and the clergy. The monasteries were wholly under\n the jurisdiction of the bishops in whose diocese they lay. The\n exemptions of this period were limited to security for the free\n election of the abbot, independent administration of property\n and gratuitous performance of consecrations by the bishop. In\n the Frankish empire, however, abbots were ordinarily appointed\n to vacancies by the court, and rich abbeys were also often\n bestowed upon distinguished noblemen _in commendam_, _i.e._,\n for temporary administration with the enjoyment of their revenues,\n or even to court and military officers as a reward for special\n services. Such lay abbots or _abbacomites_ often stayed in the\n monasteries for months with their families, their huntsmen and\n their soldiers, and made them the scene of their drinking bouts,\n their field sports and their military exercises. The kings\n retained the richest abbacies to themselves or gave them to\n their sons and daughters, wives and concubines.\n\n \u00a7 85.6. =The Stylites= (\u00a7 44, 6) on account of the climate,\n could gain no footing, though attempts were indeed made, _e.g._\n by Wulflaich (\u00a7 78, 3). In place of them we find male and female\n recluses, =Reclusi= (_Inclusi_) and _Reclus\u00e6_, who shut themselves\n up in cells which they never quitted. =Hermits of the Woods=,\n unfettered by any rules, found great favour among the Germans.\n Their national melancholic temperament inclining them to solitude,\n their strong love of nature, their passionate delight in roaming\n unchecked through woods and mountains, contributed to make such a\n mode of life attractive. It was during the 6th century that this\n craze for hermit life reached its height in Germany, and its main\n seat was in Auvergne with its wild mountains, glens and gorges.\n But as the cell of the saint was often in later times developed\n into a monastery on account of the crowds of disciples that\n gathered round, the hermit life gradually passed over into a\n regulated c\u0153nobite life. In Switzerland Meinard, son of a count\n of Zollern, was a hermit of this sort. In A.D. 861 he had been\n murdered by two robbers, and this was afterwards discovered, the\n legend says, by means of two ravens feeding upon the body of the\n murdered man. His cell in later times grew into the beautiful\n Benedictine abbey of Maria-Einsiedeln with its miracle-working\n image of the mother of God, which at this day is visited by more\n than a hundred thousand pilgrims yearly.\n\n\n \u00a7 86: THE PROPERTY OF CHURCHES AND MONASTERIES.\n\n The inalienableness of church property being regarded as the first\nprinciple of its administration, it grew by enormous strides from year\nto year through donations and legacies, At the end of the 7th century\nthere was in Gaul fully a third of the whole territory in the possession\nof the churches and monasteries, while the national exchequer was\nquite exhausted. In this emergency Charles Martel founded the benefice\nsystem, for which he also converted into money the abundant possessions\nof the church. His sons, however, Carloman and Pepin the Short, in\nconsideration of the reorganization of the Frankish church effected by\nBoniface (\u00a7 78, 5), sought to avert the impoverishment of many churches\nand cloisters by a partial restitution so far as the neediness of the\ntimes would allow. Charlemagne and Louis the Pious did still more in\nthis direction, so that partly by these means, partly by the continued\ndonations of rich people, church property soon acquired its earlier\nproportions. Thus, _e.g._, the monastery of Luxeuil had in the 9th\ncentury an estate with 15,000 farm-houses upon it.--The administration\nof the property of churches and monasteries lay in the hands of the\nbishops and abbots. For defending and maintaining secular and legal\nrights there were ecclesiastical and monastic advocates, _Advocati\necclesi\u00e6_. This institution, however, often degenerated into an\nagency for oppressing the peasants and plundering the property of\ntheir clients; for many advocates assumed arbitrary powers and dealt\nwith the property of the church and its proceeds just as they chose.\n\n \u00a7 86.1. =The Revenues of Churches and Monasteries.=--The main\n sources of their growing wealth were donations and legacies.\n Princes often made bequests of enormous magnitude and rich people\n in private life vied with them. Occasions were never wanting;\n restoration from sickness, escape from danger, the birth of\n a child, etc., regularly won for the church whose patron saint\n had been helpful, some valuable present. The clergy also used\n all means in their power to encourage this prevailing readiness\n to bestow presents; and to this must in great measure be traced\n the beginnings of the forging of deeds. A peculiar form for\n bequeathing a gift was that of the _Precaria_, according to\n which the giver retained to himself for his lifetime the use\n of the goods which he gifted. Church property was farther greatly\n increased by the personal possessions of the clergy and the\n monks, which at the death of the former and at the _conversio_\n of the latter usually became part of the revenue of the church\n or cloister to which their owners belonged. Besides the proceeds\n of its own estates the church drew the tithes of all property\n and incomes of parishioners, the claim being enforced as a _jus\n divinum_ by a reference to the Mosaic legislation and made a\n law of the empire by the injunction of Charlemagne. On the other\n hand the clergy were forbidden to exact payment for discharge\n of official duties, so called stole-dues, because they were\n performed by the priest dressed in the _stola_. The cathedral\n church was entitled to an annual tax, _Honor cathedr\u00e6_, levied\n upon all the churches of the diocese. The inferior clergy, on the\n other hand, often arrogated to themselves the right in accordance\n with a bad custom of grasping by violent plunder the possessions\n of their deceased bishop, _Spolium_.[241]\n\n \u00a7 86.2. =The Benefice System.=--In consequence of the vast\n gifts of the Merovingians to the churches and their ministrants,\n when Charles Martel assumed the government, the sources of crown\n revenue that hitherto seemed inexhaustible were almost completely\n dried up, while this prince, in order to deliver the country from\n the Saracens and in order to maintain his rule over against the\n innumerable petty tyrants who threatened to dismember the empire,\n required a yet fuller treasury than any of his predecessors. Out\n of these circumstances grew the =Benefice System=. The soldiers\n who had served the nation and princes had been as before rewarded\n by grants of lands. These, however, were no longer given as\n hereditary possessions but only for the lifetime of the receiver\n (_Beneficium_), and for this he was under obligation to supply\n a proportionate contingent for military service. When the crown\n lands had been well nigh exhausted, Charles Martel did not\n hesitate to lay claim to the church property. His son Carloman\n at the first Austrasian national Synod in A.D. 742 (\u00a7 78, 5)\n promised to restore the church property that had thus been\n alienated, but had soon to confess his inability to perform his\n promise. At the second Austrasian Synod at Lestines in A.D. 743\n he therefore limited the immediate restitution to the most\n pressing cases of notoriously poor and needy churches and\n monasteries. He was driven to this by the absolutely needful\n claims of the civil and military departments. But the claim\n of the church to get back the property was secured by the\n beneficiary giving a _Precarial_ letter and by the payment of\n an annual tax of a solidus for every farm house on the estate.\n The king also promised the full restoration on the death of\n the beneficiary, with express retention, however, of the right,\n if the needs of the times required it, to lease out again the\n vacant _precari\u00e6_. Even Pepin at the Neustrian national Synod\n at Soissons in A.D. 744 granted similar concessions, but yet\n in the execution of them did not go so far as his brother. In\n A.D. 751 he caused a _descriptio et divisio_, _i.e._ an inventory\n of church property with an exact fixing of the limits of its\n various titles to be made.[242]--The annual tax referred to was\n transformed by Charlemagne into a second tithe, the so-called\n _Non\u00e6_. But even after the partial restitution effected by the\n descendants of Pepin there still remained upon the restored\n property the beneficial burdens that had been laid upon it,\n especially the obligation to supply and equip a certain number\n of soldiers, and this was thence transferred to the whole\n property of the church.--The benefice system, originating\n in the pressure of circumstances, continued to spread more\n and more, and formed the foundation of the entire social and\n civil organization of the Middle Ages.[243]\n\n\n \u00a7 87. ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION.\n\n The construction of ecclesiastical legislation for the German\nempire was at first wholly the work of the Synods. The popes exerted\nscarcely any influence upon it, but all the more powerfully was\nfelt the influence of the kings. They summoned the Synods, laid\ndown to them the subjects to be discussed, and confirmed according\nto their own judgment their decisions. From the time that the Frankish\nbishoprics were filled by native Franks the independent life of\nthe Synods was quenched, and ecclesiastical affairs were arranged\nat the national assemblies in which the bishops also took part as\nterritorial nobles. The great national Synods, too, at which Boniface\u2019s\nreorganization of the church in accordance with Roman ecclesiastical\nlaw as carried (\u00a7 78, 5) were _Concilia mixta_ of this kind; and\neven under Charlemagne and Louis of France these were still prevalent.\nCharles, however, made their proceedings more orderly by grouping the\nnobles into three ranks as bishops, abbots and counts. Under the Pepin\ndynasty alongside of the synodal we have the royal decrees, arranged\nin separate chapters, and hence the ordinances are called _Capitularia_.\nPurely ecclesiastical Synods in later times again gained a footing and\nwere particularly numerous in the times of Hincmar.\n\n \u00a7 87.1. =Older Collections of Ecclesiastical Law.=--Gregory II.\n furnished Boniface with a _Codex canonum_, undoubtedly the\n _Dionysiaca_ (\u00a7 43, 3), and Hadrian II. presented Charlemagne\n with one which was solemnly received at the National Synod of\n Aachen in A.D. 802. There was in Spain a new collection which\n was erroneously attributed to bishop Isidore of Seville, who to\n distinguish him from the Frankish Pseudo-Isidore is designated\n the genuine Isidore, or more correctly as _Hispana_. This\n collection in form attaches itself to _Dionysiaca_. In the\n 9th century it was introduced among the Franks, and here gave\n contents and name to the Pseudo-Isidorian collection. In close\n connection with this masterpiece of forgery stands the collection\n of laws by Benedictus Levita of Mainz, which was indeed called\n a collection of capitularies, but was gathered mainly from\n documents of ecclesiastical legislation, genuine and spurious. A\n collection of true and genuine capitularies was made in A.D. 827\n by Ansegis, Abbot of Fontenelles. Benedict\u2019s collection was\n included in it as 5th, 6th, and 7th books. Besides these large\n collections many bishops prepared epitomized collections for\n the use of their own dioceses, of which several are extant under\n the name of _Capitula Episcoporum_. Decidedly in the interest\n of the Pseudo-Isidore are the _Capitula Angilramni_, composed\n and subscribed by bishop Angilramnus of Metz (d. A.D. 791). The\n dates and contents of the three first-named collections were\n determined in the interest of the Pseudo-Isidorian, and are still\n a matter of controversy. Benedict, according to his own credible\n statement, undertook his work at the command of the archbishop\n Otgar, of Mainz, for the archives of Mainz, but completed and\n published it probably in France only after Otgar\u2019s death, which\n occurred in A.D. 847. But while in earlier times it was generally\n believed that Benedict had used the Pseudo-Isidore, Hinschius\n has become convinced that the author of the capitula is identical\n with the Pseudo-Isidore, and from Benedict\u2019s capitularies has\n unravelled first the composition of the capitula and then that\n of the decretals.[244]\n\n \u00a7 87.2. =The Collection of Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore.=--In\n the fiftieth year of the 9th century there appeared in France\n under the name of Isidorus Mercator a collection of canons and\n decretals, which indeed completely embraced the older so-called\n _Isidoriana_, but was enlarged by the addition of a multitude\n of forged decretals. The surname Mercator, otherwise Peccator,\n is probably derived from the well known Marius Mercator\n (\u00a7 47, 20), who had also occupied himself with the translation\n of ecclesiastical documents, which the Pseudo-Isidore used\n for his work. It begins with the fifty _Canones Apostt._, then\n follow fifty-nine forged decretals which are assigned to the\n thirty oldest popes from Clement to Melchiades (d. A.D. 314).\n The second part embraces, besides the original document of\n the Donation of Constantine, genuine synodal decrees falsified\n apparently only in one passage. The third part, again, contains\n decretals of Sylvester, the successor of Melchiades, down to\n Gregory II. (d. A.D. 731), of which thirty-five are not genuine.\n The non-genuine decretals are for the most part not altogether\n forgeries, but are rather based upon the literature of theology\n and canon law then existing, amplified or altered, and wrought\n up to serve the purposes of the compiler. The system of the\n Pseudo-Isidore is characterized by the following peculiarities:\n Over the _Imperium_ is raised the _Sacerdotium_, ordained of\n Christ to be governor and judge of the world. The unity and\n head of the _Sacerdotium_ is represented by the pope. Bishops\n are related to the pope as the other apostles were to Peter.\n The metropolitan is only _primus inter pares_. Between the pope\n and the bishops as an intermediate rank we have the primates or\n patriarchs. This rank, however, belongs only to such metropolitan\n sees as either were ordained to it by the apostles and their\n successors, or to such sees in more recently converted lands\n as were elevated to this position in consequence of the multitude\n of bishops belonging to them. Provincial Synods should be held\n only with the consent of the pope, their decrees become valid\n only after receiving his confirmation, and all _caus\u00e6 majores_,\n especially all complaints against bishops, belong solely to\n his own judicature. Priests are the _Familiares Dei_, the\n _Spirituales_; the laity, on the other hand, are the _Carnales_.\n No clergyman, least of all a bishop, may be taken before a\n secular tribunal. A layman may not appear as an accuser against\n a clergyman, and the Synods are enjoined to render charges\n against a bishop as difficult as possible. An expelled bishop,\n before the charges against him can be examined, must have been\n fully restored (_Exceptio Spolii_). If the accused regards his\n judges as _inimici_ or _suspecti_, he may appeal to be examined\n before the pope. For the establishing of a charge at least\n seventy-two witnesses are necessary, etc.\n\n \u00a7 87.3. The forgery originated in France, where it had been in\n existence for some years before it was known in Rome, as appears\n from the process against Rothad of Soissons (\u00a7 83, 2). Rothad\n first brought it to Rome in A.D. 864. Blondel and Kunst regard\n Benedict Levita as its author. He first gave currency to the\n forgery in his Collection of Capitularies. and so arouses\n the suspicion that he is himself the forger. Philipps fathers\n it upon Rothad of Soissons; Wasserschleben ascribes it to\n archbishop Otgar of Mainz, who, as a prominent head of the\n clerical conspiracy against Louis the Pious (\u00a7 82, 4), would\n have reason to defend himself against the judgment which would\n befall conspirators. But this doom did not in any very special\n manner threaten Otgar. On Louis\u2019 restoration he was not sentenced\n or deposed by any synod, but was without more ado received into\n favour by the emperor. The Pseudo-Isidore\u2019s hostile attitude\n toward the chorepiscopi (\u00a7 84), while gaining no footing in\n Germany, certainly prevailed in France; and France, not Germany,\n was the place where this collection first appeared between\n A.D. 853 and 864. Since now, moreover, the prominence given\n by the Pseudo-Isidore to the rank of primate may be regarded\n as equally favourable to the see of Rheims as to that of Mainz,\n Weizs\u00e4cker and v. Noorden have sought the original home of the\n forgery in the diocese of Rheims, and point to Ebo, archbishop of\n Rheims, Hincmar\u2019s predecessor, as the forger. And Ebo certainly\n stood in the front rank of the revolt referred to. Before him\n Louis had specially to humble himself. He was therefore taken\n prisoner immediately upon the emperor\u2019s restoration, and deprived\n of his office at the Synod of Didenhofen in A.D. 835 (\u00a7 82, 4).\n The emperor Lothair, indeed, restored him in A.D. 840, but\n his position was still very insecure, as he had before a year\n passed to save himself by flight on the approach of Charles\n the Bald, and never again saw Rheims, which till Hincmar\u2019s\n elevation remained in the hands of chorepiscopi. The composition\n of the collection, according to v. Noorden, belongs to the\n period immediately preceding and lasting through his restitution.\n Finally Hinschius regards Rheims as undoubtedly the scene\n of the composition of these forgeries, but he cannot ascribe\n them to Ebo because, according to his demonstration, Benedict\u2019s\n Pseudo-Isidore used as his authority only a collection completed\n after A.D. 847, and by that time Ebo could not have the shadow\n of a hope of restoration. But he also advances other weighty\n considerations. Ebo himself had never attempted to make good\n the claims which the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals would have\n afforded him. If his own affairs had first led him to think\n of forging decretals he must have foreseen that the extensive\n studies necessary for such a work would have demanded many years\n of laborious effort, and would be concluded much too late to\n serve his purpose. It would, therefore, seem to him safer to\n confine himself to what his immediately present circumstances\n urgently required; whereas the actual Pseudo-Isidore, on the\n contrary, puts in the mouths of the early popes, with no little\n zeal and emphasis, a vast array of other exhortations and decrees\n that seemed to him useful amid the troubles of that age for the\n well being of the church and its ministers. Thus the whole work\n assumes more of the character of a _pia fraus_ of a somewhat\n high church cleric of that time than of a forgery devised in\n the selfish interests of an individual. This much, however,\n must be admitted, that the directions quoted about judicial\n procedure against accused bishops exactly fit the case of Ebo.\n As the first attempt to use the non-genuine decretals only found\n in Pseudo-Isidore was made at the Synod of Soissons in A.D. 853,\n by those clerics who had been ordained by Ebo after his deposition\n but rejected by Hincmar, the final redaction and publication must\n fall between A.D. 847 and 853. Langen fixes the date at A.D. 850,\n and refers its authorship to Servatus Lupus (\u00a7 90, 5). Nobody\n then doubted their genuineness. Even Hincmar seems for a long\n time to have had no doubts. But he decidedly repudiated their\n legal authority in the Frankish church, and energetically opposed\n them when they were sought to be enforced against the independence\n of the church. Thus he could always refer to them where their\n contentions agreed with his own, or, as in the case against his\n nephew, where they supported his rights as primate, in order to\n defeat his opponents with their own weapons. Subsequently however,\n in A.D. 872, in a letter written in the name of his king to pope\n Hadrian, he characterized them in contrast with the genuine and\n valid decretals as _secus a quoquam compilata sive conficta_.\n The Magdeburg Centuriators were the first conclusively to prove\n them spurious. The Jesuit Turrianus, however, entered the lists\n once more on their behalf. But the reformed theologian, David\n Blondel, castigated so sharply and thoroughly this theological\n unprincipledness, that even in the Roman Catholic church their\n non-genuineness has been now since admitted.[245]\n\n \u00a7 87.4. Among the many spurious documents which the\n Pseudo-Isidore included in his collection of ecclesiastical\n laws, we find an =Edictum Constantini Imperatoris=. In the\n first part of it, the so-called _Confessio_, Constantine makes\n a confession of his faith, and relates in detail in what a\n wonderful way he was converted to Christianity by pope Sylvester,\n and cured of leprosy (\u00a7 42, 1). Then in the second part, the\n so-called _Donatio_, he confers upon the chair of Peter, with\n recognition of its absolute primacy over all patriarchates of\n the empire, imperial power, rank, honour, and insignia, as all\n privileges and claims of imperial senators upon its clergy. In\n order that the possessor of this gift may be able to all time to\n maintain the dignity of his position, he gives him the Lateran\n palace, transfers to him independent dominion over \u201c_Romanam\n urbem et omnes Itali\u00e6 seu_ (in Frankish Latin of the 8th and\n 9th centuries this means \u2018as well as\u2019) _occidentalium regionum\n provincias, loca et civitates_\u201d (therefore not merely Italy\n but the whole West Roman empire); he removes his own imperial\n residence to Byzantium, \u201c_quoniam ubi principates Sacerdotum et\n Christ. religionis Caput ab Imperatore c\u0153lesti constitutum est,\n justum non est, ut illic Imperator terrerum habeat potestatem_.\u201d\n In a letter of Hadrian I. to Charlemagne in A.D. 788, in which he\n salutes the emperor as a second Constantine who is called upon by\n God not only to restore to the apostolic chair the \u201c_potestas in\n his Hesperi\u00e6 partibus_,\u201d which had been already assigned it by\n the first Constantine, but also all later legacies and donations\n \u201cof various patricians and other God-fearing men,\u201d which the\n godless race of the Longobards in course of time tore from it,\n we have the first hint at the idea of a _Donatio Constantini_.\n The same pope, too, according to the _Vita Hadriani_ in the\n Romish Pontifical, on the occasion of Charles\u2019 visit to Rome\n in A.D. 774 is said to have reclaimed from him an enormous grant\n of land (\u00a7 82, 2). It seemed therefore an extremely probable\n supposition that assigned Rome as the place where this document\n originated, and the period of the overthrow of the Longobard\n empire, whether actually accomplished or on the eve of taking\n place, as the date of its fabrication (\u00a7 82, 1, 2). Against\n this view, almost universally prevalent, quite recently Grauert\n has advanced a vast array of powerful arguments, _e.g._, the\n limitation of the _Donatio_ of Constantine to Italy which\n is here suggested contradicts its own express statement. The\n words of the letter of Hadrian referred to speak not of a\n dominion =over= Italy, and which they could have read, \u201c_in\n has H. partes_,\u201d but of a dominion in Italy which was founded\n upon Constantine\u2019s munificence and enlarged by many subsequent\n presents. They do not, therefore, refer like the words of\n the _Donatio_ to sovereign territorial authority, but to the\n exceedingly wide-spread and rich property included in the\n _Patrimonium Petri_ (\u00a7 46, 10). The \u201cpotestas,\u201d said to have\n been assigned by Constantine to the Roman see, does not exceed\n the authority which even according to the _Vita Sylvestri_ of\n the Pontifical had been given by Constantine to that pope.--Thus\n the donation document is met with first in the Pseudo-Isidore.\n It was often afterwards referred to by the Frankish government.\n By Rome, on the other hand, although even Nicholas I. was made\n acquainted with the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals by Rothad, and\n referred to them in A.D. 865, they are never used, either against\n the Franks or against the Byzantines until, in A.D. 1053, we meet\n an allusion to them in a letter from Leo IX. to the patriarch\n Michael C\u00e6rularius (\u00a7 67, 3). Grauert accounts for this by saying\n that there were two recensions of Pseudo-Isidore, a shorter,\n which had only the first part of the document, the so-called\n _Confessio_; and a longer, which had also the _Donatio_, and\n that Rothad took probably only the shorter one to Rome. From\n these and other data adduced by Grauert it seems more than\n probable that the foundry in which the document was forged\n was not in Rome, but rather in France among the high church\n party there, from which also the full-fledged forgery\n proceeded. It would also seem that a double purpose was\n served by its composition. On the one hand, over against the\n Greeks it represented the chair of Peter as raised above all\n the patriarchates of the empire, and the Western empire as a\n thoroughly legitimate one transferred by Constantine the Great\n to the pope, and then by him to the kings of the Franks. And,\n on the other hand, it also made it clear to the Frankish princes\n that all temporal power in the West essentially, and from of old,\n belonged to the pope, and is bestowed upon them by means of their\n coronation by the pope\u2019s hands.--That from the time when they met\n with the document unto the 11th century the Byzantines did not\n contest its genuineness, need not surprise us when we consider\n the uncritical character of the age. They would also be the less\n disposed to do so as they could only thereby hope to win that\n perfect equality in spiritual authority as well as in secular\n rank with the Roman bishop which the fourth \u0153cumenical council\n had assigned to their patriarchal see. But while the Byzantines\n may be regarded as inconsiderately incorporating this donation\n of Constantine into their historical and legal books, blotting\n out indeed the passages which seemed to them to favour the\n pretensions of the pope to universal sovereignty, it is a\n more difficult task to secure for it acceptance among Western\n diplomatists. Even in A.D. 999 a state paper of Otto III.\n describes it as a pure fiction. High church tendencies, however,\n raised their standard also in the West during the 11th century\n (\u00a7 96, 4, 5). Indeed, even in A.D. 1152, an Arnoldist (\u00a7 108, 7),\n named Wetzel, wrote to the Emperor Frederick I.: \u201cTheir lies\n and heretical fables are now so completely exploded that even\n day-labourers and cow-men could prove to scholars their emptiness,\n and the pope with his cardinals ventures not for shame to show\n himself in the city of Rome.\u201d The victory, however, of the papacy\n over the Hohenstaufen gained currency for it again, and it was\n the treatise of Laurentius Valla, \u201cDe falso credita et ementita\n Constantini donatione declamatio,\u201d which Ulrich von Hutten issued\n in multitude from the press, gave it the death blow (\u00a7 120, 1).\n When, thereafter, even Baronius admitted the spuriousness of the\n document, though assigning its fabrication to the Greeks, who\n wished by it to prove that the Roman primacy was not of Christ\n but from Constantine, it found no longer a vindicator even in the\n Roman Catholic church.\n\n\n\n\n III. THE CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE.\n\n\n \u00a7 88. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ART.\n\n The German Arians undoubtedly used the language of the people\nin their services. The adoption of Catholicism, however, led to the\nintroduction of the Latin tongue. The last trace of acquaintance with\nUlfilas\u2019 translation of the Bible is found in the 9th century. The\nnations converted directly to Catholicism had from the first the Latin\nlanguage in public worship. Only the Slavs still retained the use of\ntheir mother tongue (\u00a7 79, 2). The Roman liturgy, as well as the Roman\nlanguage, was adopted in all churches with the exception of those of\nMilan and Spain. After Pepin had entered into closer relations with\nthe popes, he endeavoured, in A.D. 754, at their desire, to bring about\na uniformity between the Frankish ritual and the Roman pattern; and\nCharlemagne, whom Hadrian I. presented with a Roman Sacramentarium,\ncarried it out with relentless energy. The slightness of the liturgical\ncontributions of the Germans is to be accounted for partly by the\nfact that the Roman liturgy was already presented to them in a\nrichly developed and essentially complete form, but also partly\nby the exclusion of the national languages and the refusal to give\nthe people a share in the liturgical services. Under the constraint\nof a foreign tongue the Germans could not put the impress of their\nnational character on a department in which language plays so important\na part.\n\n \u00a7 88.1. =Liturgy and Preaching.=--Alongside of the Roman or\n Gregorian =Liturgy= many others also were in use. The people\n and clergy of Milan so determinedly adhered to their old\n Ambrosian liturgy, that even Charlemagne could not dislodge\n it, and down to the present day Milan has preserved this\n treasure. No less energetically did the Spaniards hold by\n their national liturgy, the so-called Mozarabic (\u00a7 81, 1).\n It has a strong resemblance to the oriental liturgies, but\n was further elaborated by bishops Leander and Isidore of Seville\n (\u00a7 80, 2), and was recognised by the National Synod of Toledo in\n A.D. 633 as valid for the whole of Spain. The Gallican liturgies\n too of the Carolingian times betrayed a certain dependence upon\n the oriental rituals. =Preaching=, in the services of the Western\n churches was always subordinate to the liturgy, and the relapse\n into savagery occasioned by the migrations of the peoples drove\n it almost completely out of the field. The missionary fervour in\n the Western church during the 7th century was the first thing to\n re-awaken a sense of its importance. But then very few priests\n could compose a sermon. Charlemagne, therefore, about A.D. 780,\n had a Latin Homiliarium compiled by Paulus Diaconus [Paul\n Warnefrid] (\u00a7 90, 3) from the fathers for all the Sundays and\n Festivals of the year, as a model for their own composition,\n or, where that was too much to be expected, for reading in\n the original or in a translation. During the whole Middle\n Ages and beyond the Reformation it continued to be one of the\n most read and most diligently used books in the Roman Catholic\n church. Missionaries naturally preached themselves or through\n interpreters in the language of the people; even in constituted\n churches preaching was generally conducted in the speech of\n the country. Charlemagne and the Synods of his time insisted\n at least upon German or Romanic preaching.\n\n \u00a7 88.2. =Church Music= (\u00a7 59, 4, 5).--After Gregory\u2019s ordinance\n church music continued to be restricted to the clergy. Charlemagne\n indeed insisted, but unsuccessfully, that all the people should\n take part in singing the _Gloria_ and the _Sanctus_. In the\n 7th-9th cent. a number of Latin hymn-writers flourished, of\n whom the most distinguished were Bede, Paul Warnefrid, Theodulf\n of Orleans, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, and Walafrid Strabo. The\n beautiful Pentecost hymn _Veni creator Spiritus_ is ascribed\n to Charlemagne. The old classical form and colouring were\n more and more lost, but all the more the essentially Christian\n and Germanic character of simplicity and spirituality became\n prominent. Toward the end of our period the composition of Latin\n hymns obtained a new and fruitful impetus from the adoption\n of the so-called =Sequences= or =Proses= in the Mass. Under\n the long series of notes, hitherto without words attached,\n which were appended to the Alleluia to express inarticulate\n jubilation, hence called _jubilationes_, were now placed\n appropriate rhythmical words in Latin prose, which, however,\n soon assumed the form of metre, rhyme and strophes. The first\n famous writer of Sequences was the monk Notker Balbulus of\n St. Gall, who died in A.D. 912. Connected in form with the\n Latin Sequences were the more recently introduced Old Frankish\n _Lais_ (Celtic=verse, song) and the Old German _Leiche_ (=melody,\n song), to simple airs that had been used for popular songs. The\n only one which the church allowed to the people, and that only\n in services outside of the church, in processions, rogations and\n pilgrimages, in going to the church, at translations of relics,\n funerals, consecrations of churches, popular religious festivals,\n etc., was the singing or rather reciting of the _Kyrie eleison_\n from the great Litany. The fondness of the Germans for singing\n and composing hymns led, in the second half of the 9th century,\n to the attaching to these words short rhyming sacred verses in\n their mother tongue, and this in such a manner that the _Kyrie\n eleison_ always formed the refrain of a strophe, so that they\n were called =Leisons=. This was the beginning of German church\n music. Of the Leisons only one hymn to St. Peter in the Old\n High-German dialect has come down to our day.--=The Gregorian\n Music=, _Cantus firmus_ or _choralis_, won a most complete\n victory over the Ambrosian (\u00a7 59, 5). In A.D. 754 Pepin at\n the request of Stephen II. ordered that in France only the\n Roman singing should be allowed, and Charlemagne secured for\n it complete and exclusive ascendency in all the West by violently\n extirpating the already very degenerate Ambrosian music, by\n establishing the celebrated singing schools of Metz, Soissons,\n Orleans, Paris, Lyons, etc., at the head of which he placed\n teachers brought from Rome, and by introducing instruction in\n singing in all the higher and lower schools. The first =Organ=\n came to France in A.D. 757 as a present to Pepin the Short from\n the Greek emperor Constantinus Copronymus; the second to Aachen\n with an embassy from the emperor Michael I. in Charlemagne\u2019s\n time. From that time they became more common. They were still\n as instruments very imperfect. They had only from 9 to 12 notes,\n and the keys were so stiff that they had to be beaten down with\n the fist.[246]--Continuation, \u00a7 104, 10, 11.\n\n \u00a7 88.3. =The Sacrifice of the Mass.=--As the idea of sacrifice\n gained place there sprang up in addition to the masses for the\n souls of the departed (\u00a7 58, 3) private masses for various other\n purposes, for the success of some undertaking, for the recovery\n of a sick person, for good weather and a good harvest, etc.\n To some extent the multiplication of masses was limited by the\n ordinance that celebration should be made at the same altar\n and by the same priest only once in the day. From the wish to\n secure that as many masses as possible should be said for their\n souls after death, churches and monasteries were formed into\n fraternities with a stipulated obligation to celebrate a certain\n number of masses for each deceased member of the fraternity in\n all the churches and monasteries belonging thereto. Fraternities\n of this kind, into which as a special favour princes and nobles\n were received, were called =Confederacies for the Dead=.\n\n \u00a7 88.4. =The Worship of Saints= (\u00a7 57).--This practice\n found a very ready response from the Germans. It afforded\n some compensation for the abandoned worship of their ancestors.\n But over all other saints towered the mother of God, the meek\n and gentle queen of heaven. In her the old German reverence\n for woman found its ideal and full satisfaction. In respect of\n =Image Worship= (\u00a7 57, 4) the Germans lagged behind, partly from\n the scarcity of images, partly from national aversion to them.\n The Frankish church of the Carolingian age protested formally\n against them (\u00a7 92, 1). But all the greater was the zeal shown\n in the =Worship of Relics= (\u00a7 57, 5) in which the worshipper\n had the saint concretely and bodily. The relics of the West were\n innumerable. Rome was an inexhaustible storehouse; and from the\n successive missionaries, from the deserts and solitudes, from the\n monasteries and bishops\u2019 seats, there went forth crowds of new\n saints whose bones were venerated with enthusiasm. The gaining\n of a new relic for a church or monastery was regarded as a piece\n of good fortune for the whole land, and amid thousands assembled\n from far and near the translation was carried out, accompanied\n with liberal gifts of money. The Frankish monastery of Centula\n could show in the 9th century an immensely long list of the\n relics which it possessed, from the grave of the Innocents,\n the milk of the Holy Virgin, the beard of Peter, his cloak,\n the _Oratorium_ of Paul, and even from the wood of the three\n tabernacles that Peter wished to build on Tabor. The custom of\n making =Pilgrimages= (\u00a7 57, 6) also found great favour among the\n travel-loving Germans, especially among the Anglo-Saxons. The\n places most frequented by pilgrims were the tomb of the chief\n Apostles at Rome, then the tomb of Martin of Tours, and, toward\n the end of our period, that of St. James of Compostella, _Jacobus\n Apostolus_ the elder, the supposed founder of the Spanish church,\n whose bones were discovered there by Alfonso the Chaste. The\n immoralities consequent upon pilgrimages, about which even\n the ancient church complained, were also only too apparent\n in this later age. On account of them Boniface urges that his\n countrywomen should be forbidden to go on pilgrimages, since\n this only served to supply the cities of Gaul and Italy with\n prostitutes. The idea of =Guardian Angels= (\u00a7 57, 3) was eagerly\n adopted by the Germans. They were specially drawn to the warlike\n Archangel Michael, the conqueror of the great dragon (Dan. xii. 1;\n Jude 9; Rev. xii. 7 ff.).--Continuation, \u00a7 104, 8.\n\n \u00a7 88.5. =Times and Places for Public Worship.=--The beginning\n of the church year was changed from Easter to Christmas. All\n Saints\u2019 Day (\u00a7 57, 1), originally a Roman local festival, was\n made a universal ordinance by Gregory IV. who, in A.D. 835, fixed\n its date at 1st Nov. The abundance of relics and the multitude\n of masses that were said made it necessary to increase the number\n of altars in the churches beyond what Charlemagne had enjoined.\n Afterwards they were usually limited to three. The high altar\n stood out by itself in the middle of the choir recess. The side\n altars leant on pillars or on the chief altar. A relic shrine\n generally from the 8th century formed the back of the altar. No\n trace of a chancel is found, not even of a confessional chair. In\n churches which had the right of baptizing (\u00a7 84, 2) there were as\n a rule separate baptistries. In place of these, after the right\n of baptizing was conferred on all churches, the baptismal font\n was introduced, either on the left side of the main entrance or\n at the point where the transepts crossed the nave. This change\n required the substitution of sprinkling for immersion. Clocks and\n towers became always more common. The latter, at first separate\n from the buildings, were from Charlemagne\u2019s time attached to the\n church edifice. The baptism of bells, their consecration with\n water, oil and chrism, with the bestowing on them of some saint\u2019s\n name, was forbidden by Charlemagne, but it was nevertheless\n continued, and is common to this day in the Roman Catholic church.\n\n \u00a7 88.6. Most attention was paid to ecclesiastical architecture\n and painting, south of the Alps during the Ostro-gothic period,\n north of the Alps during the Carolingian period. The Anglo-Saxons,\n however, in their island home also developed a taste for art.\n During the 9th century it received special attention in the\n German monasteries of St. Gall and Fulda. The monk Tutilo of\n St. Gall, d. A.D. 912, was pre-eminently distinguished both as\n a master in architecture, painting and sculpture, and in poetry\n and scholarship. The old Roman basilica style still maintained\n the front rank in church building. Yet at Ravenna, the Byzantium\n of Italy, during the Gothic domination there were several\n beautiful churches in the Byzantine cupola style. Einhard\n received from Charlemagne the rank of a court architect. Of\n all the churches built in Charlemagne\u2019s time the most important\n was the cathedral of Aachen. It was built in the cupola style\n after the pattern of the cathedral church of Ravenna. Intended\n as a royal chapel, it was connected by a pillared passage with\n the palace. It was therefore also of only moderate dimensions.\n Its being appropriated as the coronation church led subsequently\n to its enlargement by the addition to it in A.D. 1355 of a\n large choir in the Gothic style. The church afforded abundant\n scope for the use of the art of the statuary. Costly shrines\n for relics were required, crucifixes, lamps, _ciboria_, incense\n vessels, etc., on which might be lavished all the refinements\n of artistic skill. The church books had artistically carved\n covers. Church doors, episcopal thrones, reading desks,\n baptismal fonts, afforded room for practice in _relievo_\n work. Among the various kinds of pictorial representations\n miniature painting was most diligently practised upon copies\n of the church books.--Continuation, \u00a7 104, 12, 14.\n\n\n \u00a7 89. NATIONAL CUSTOMS, SOCIAL LIFE AND CHURCH DISCIPLINE.\n\n The remains of Christian popular poetry of this period afford a\nconvincing proof of the powerful and profound manner in which the\ntruths of Christianity (\u00a7 75, 1) had been grasped by the German races.\nThe great mass of the people indeed had adopted the new faith in a\npurely historical fashion. Only gradually did it make its way into\nthe inner spiritual life, and meanwhile out of the not fully conquered\npaganism there grew up a rich crop of superstitions in connection\nwith the Christian life. It must be confessed that the state of\nmorality among the Germans had fallen very low as compared with\nthat which prevailed before Germany\u2019s conversion to Christianity.\nA sadder contrast is scarcely conceivable than that presented by a\ncomparison of the description in Tacitus of the old German customs\nand discipline and the account of Gregory of Tours of colossal\ncriminality and brutish sensuality in the Merovingian Age. But\nnever more than here does the fallacy: _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_,\nrequire to be guarded against. The moral deterioration of the German\npeoples was carried out independently of their contemporaneous, merely\nexternal, Christianization. The cause of it lies only in the overturning\nof the foundations of German life by the migration of the peoples.\nSevered from their original home, the most powerful guardian of\nancestral customs, and set down as conquerors in the midst of rich\ncountries with morally base surroundings, which had a poisonous effect\nupon them, with that eagerness and tenacity which characterize children\nof nature, they seized upon the seductive treasures and enjoyments,\nand their unfettered passion broke through all restraints of discipline\nand morality. The clearest proof of this view lies in the fact that the\nmoral decay appeared in so remarkable a degree only among such peoples\nas settled in the corrupt Roman world and became amalgamated with it,\nmost conspicuously among the Franks in Gaul and the Longobards in Italy,\nwhereas among the Anglo-Saxons and the inhabitants of Germany the moral\ndevelopment was more normal.\n\n \u00a7 89.1. =Superstition.=--A powerful impulse was given to\n superstition on the one hand by the church, according to the\n educational method recommended by Gregory the Great (\u00a7 75, 3),\n refusing recklessly to root out every element of paganism and\n rather endeavouring to give Christian applications to heathen\n institutions and views and to fill pagan forms with Christian\n contents, and on the other hand, by the representatives of the\n church not regarding belief in the existence of heathen deities\n as a delusion but counting the gods and goddesses as demons.\n The popular belief therefore saw in them a set of dethroned\n deities who in certain realms of nature maintain their ancient\n sway, whom therefore they dare not venture altogether to\n disoblige. The fanciful poetic view of nature prevailing\n among the Germans contributed also to this result, with its\n love of the mysterious and supernatural, its fondness for\n subtle enquiries and intellectual investigations. Thus, in\n the worship of the saints as well as in the church\u2019s belief in\n angels and devils, new rich worlds opened themselves up before\n the Christianized Germans, which the popular belief soon improved\n upon. The pious man is exposed on all sides to the vexations of\n demons, but he is also on all sides surrounded by the protecting\n care of saints and angels. The popular belief made a great deal\n of the devil, but the relation of men to the prince of darkness\n and his attendant spirits seemed much too earnest and real to be\n as yet the subject of the humour which characterized the devil\n legends of the later Middle Ages, in which the cheated, \u201cstupid\u201d\n devil is represented as at last possessed only of impotent rage\n and sneaking off in disgrace.\n\n \u00a7 89.2. =Popular Education.=--The idea of a general system\n of education for the people was already present to the mind\n of Charlemagne. Yet as we may suppose only beginnings were made\n toward its realization. Bishop Theodulf of Orleans was specially\n active in founding schools for the people in all the villages\n and country towns of his diocese. The religious instruction of\n the youth was restricted as a rule to the teaching of the Lord\u2019s\n Prayer and the Apostles\u2019 Creed. Whatever grown up man or woman\n did not know these two was at Charles\u2019 command to be subjected\n to flogging and fasting and to be made to learn them besides.\n As evidence of the extent of a religious consciousness among\n the people may be adduced the German forms of adjuration,\n belief, confession and prayer, of the 8th and 9th centuries\n which are still preserved. Further means of advancing the\n religious education of the people were afforded by the attempts\n to make the biblical and patristic books accessible to the people\n by translations in their own language. Among the Germans the\n monastery of St. Gall was famous for its zeal in originating\n a national literature. Among the Anglo-Saxons this effort was\n made and carried out by Alfred the Great, who died in A.D. 901\n (\u00a7 90, 10).\n\n \u00a7 89.3. =Christian Popular Poetry.=--It makes its first\n appearance at the end of the 7th century and continued far\n down into the 9th century. It flourished chiefly in England\n and Germany. Under the name of the Northumbrian =C\u00e6dmon=, who\n died in A.D. 680, there has been preserved a whole series of\n biblical poems of no small poetic merit, which range over the\n whole of the Old and New Testament history. The most important\n Anglo-Saxon poet after him was his countryman =Cynewulf= living\n about a century later. His poems are less homely and simple,\n but more elaborate than those of C\u00e6dmon, and as full of poetic\n enthusiasm as these. He too paints for us in his \u201cChrist\u201d the\n picture of the Redeemer as that of a manly victorious prince\n among his true \u201cchampions and earls\u201d with such clear-cut features\n that \u201cwhoever once beholds them will never again forget them.\u201d\n His poetically wrought up legends bear more of the Romish stamp\n with traces of saint worship and the doctrine of merit.[247]\n Still higher than these two Anglo-Saxon productions stands\n the German-Saxon epic the =Heliand=, of the time of Louis of\n France, a song of the Messiah worthy of its august subject,\n truly national, perfect in form, simple, lively and majestic\n in style, transposing into German blood and life a genuine deep\n Christianity. In poetic value scarcely less significant is the\n \u201cKrist\u201d of Otfried, a monk of Weissenberg about A.D. 860. Near\n to his heart as well as to that of the Anglo-Saxon singers lay\n the thought: _thaz wir Kriste sungun in unsere Zungun_. It is,\n however, no longer popular but artistic poetry, in which the old\n German letter rhyme or alliteration gives place to the softer\n and more delicate final rhyme. To this class belongs also the\n so-called =Wessobrunner Prayer=, of which the first poetical\n half is probably a fragment of a larger hymn of the creation,\n and a poem in High German on the end of the world and the last\n judgment, known by the name of =Muspilli=, extant only as a\n fragment which is, however, almost unsurpassable in dignity\n and grandeur of description.\n\n \u00a7 89.4. =Social Condition.=--From the point of view of German\n law the contract of betrothal had the validity of =marriage=\n and the subsequent nuptial ceremony or surrender of the bride\n to the bridegroom in a public legal manner by her father or legal\n guardian was held to be only the carrying out of that contract.\n The bridal ceremony with the ecclesiastical benediction of the\n marriage bond already legally tied, was frequently celebrated\n only on the day following the marriage, therefore after its\n consummation. The Capitulary of Charlemagne of A.D. 802 came\n to the support of the claims of the church (\u00a7 61, 2), ordaining\n that without previous careful enquiry as to the relationship of\n the parties by the priest, and the elders of the people, and also\n without the priestly benediction, no marriage could be concluded.\n The Pseudo-Isidorian decretals ascribed this demand to the popes\n of the 4th and 5th centuries. But the right to perform marriages\n was not thereby committed to the church; it was only that the\n religious consecration of the civil ordinance of marriage was\n now made obligatory. It seemed best of all when sooner or later\n the spouses voluntarily renounced marital intercourse; but this\n was strictly forbidden during Lent (\u00a7 56, 4, 5), on all festivals\n and on the station days of the week (Wednesday, Friday, Saturday\n and Sunday). Second marriages were branded with the reproach of\n incontinence and called forth a lengthened penance. There was on\n the other hand as yet no prohibition of divorce, and the marrying\n again of those separated was only unconditionally forbidden in\n particular cases. The church was not willing to tolerate mixed\n marriages with heathens, Jews and Arians. The Germans found it\n most difficult to reconcile themselves to the strict requirements\n of the church in regard to the prohibited degrees of relationship.\n National customs had regarded many such marriages, especially\n with a brother\u2019s widow, as even a pious duty.[248]--Continuation,\n \u00a7 104, 6.--=Slavery= or Serfdom was an institution so closely\n connected among the Germans with their notions of property that\n the church could not think of its entire abolition; indeed the\n church itself, with its large landed possessions, owned quite\n a multitude of slaves. Yet it earnestly maintained the religious\n and moral equality of masters and servants, assigned to the\n manumission of slaves one of the first places among good works,\n and was always ready to give protection to bondmen against cruel\n masters.[249]--The church with special energy entered upon the\n task of =Caring for the Poor=; even proud and heartless bishops\n could not overlook it. Every well appointed church had several\n buildings in which the poor, the sick, widows and orphans were\n maintained at the church\u2019s cost.[250]\n\n \u00a7 89.5. =Practice of Pubic Law.=--The custom of =Blood Revenge=\n was also a thoroughly German institution. It had, however,\n been fairly restricted by the custom of =Composition= or the\n payment of satisfaction in the form of a pecuniary fine. The\n church from its dislike of capital punishment decidedly favoured\n this system. As a means of securing judicial evidence oaths\n and ordeals were administered. Only the freeman, who was quite\n capable of acting in accordance with his own judgment, was\n allowed to take an =Oath=; the husband took the oath for his\n wife, the father for the children, the master for the slave.\n Relatives, friends and equals in rank swore along with him as\n sharers of his oath, _Conjuratores_. Although they repeated with\n him the oath formula, the meaning of their action simply was\n that they were fully satisfied as to the honour and truthfulness\n of him who took the oath. Where the oath of purgation was not\n allowed, _conjuratores_ were not forthcoming and the other means\n of proof awanting, the =Ordeal= (_Ordale_ from _Ord\u00e2l_=judgment)\n was introduced. Under this may be included:\n\n 1. The Duel, derived from the old popular belief: _Deum adesse\n bellantitus_. Only a freeman was allowed to enter the lists.\n Old men, women, children and priests were allowed to put in\n their place another of the same rank by birth.\n\n 2. Various fire tests; holding the bare hand a length of time\n in the fire; in a simple shirt walking over burning logs of\n wood; carrying glowing iron in the bare hand for nine paces;\n walking barefoot over nine or twelve glowing ploughshares.\n\n 3. Two water tests: the accused was obliged to pick up with\n his naked hand a ring or stone out of a kettle filled with\n boiling water, or with a cord round his naked body he was\n cast into deep water, his sinking was the proof of his\n innocence.\n\n 4. The cross test: he whose arms first sank with weariness from\n the cruciform position, was regarded as defeated.\n\n 5. The Eucharist test, applied especially to priests: it was\n expected that the criminal should soon die under the stroke\n of God\u2019s wrath. As a substitute for this among the laity\n we find the test of the consecrated morsel, _Judicium off\u00e6_\n which the accused was required to swallow during mass.\n\n 6. The bier test, _Judicium feretri_: if when the accused\n touched the wound of the murdered man blood flowed from\n the wound or forth from the mouth, it was regarded as proof\n of his guilt.\n\n The church with its belief in miracles occupied the same\n ground as that on which the ordeal practice was rooted. It\n could therefore only combat the heathen conception of the\n ordeal and not the thing itself. But the church took charge of\n the whole procedure, and certainly did much to reduce the danger\n to a minimum. It was Agobard of Lyons, who died in A.D. 840, who\n first contended against the superstition as worthy of reprobation.\n Subsequently the Roman chair, first by Nicholas I., forbade\n ordeals of all kinds.--Among the various kinds of privileges\n involving the inviolability of person and goods, profession and\n business, the privileges of the church were regarded as next\n highest to those of the king. Any injury done to ecclesiastical\n persons or properties and any crime committed in a sacred place,\n required a threefold greater composition than _ceteris paribus_\n would have otherwise been required. The bishop ranked with the\n duke, the priest with the count.\n\n \u00a7 89.6. =Church Discipline and Penitential Exercises=\n (\u00a7 61, 1).--=The German= State allowed the church a share in\n the administration of punishments, and regarded an evildoer\u2019s\n atonement as complete only when he had submitted to the\n ecclesiastical as well as the secular judgment. Out of this grew\n the institution of Episcopal =Synodal Judicatures=, _Synodus_,\n under Charlemagne. Once a year the bishop accompanied by a royal\n _Missus_ was to travel over the whole diocese, and, of every\n parish priest assisted by assessors sworn for the purpose, should\n inquire minutely into the moral and ecclesiastical condition\n of each of the congregations under him and punish the sins and\n shortcomings discovered. Directions for the conducting of Synodal\n judicatures were written by Regino of Pr\u00fcm and Hincmar of Rheims\n (\u00a7 90, 5). The state also gave authority to =Ecclesiastical\n Excommunication= by putting its civil forces at the disposal\n of the church. Pepin ordained that no excommunicated person\n should enter a church, no Christian should eat or drink with\n him, none should even greet him. Directions for the practice of\n =Penitential Discipline= are given in the various =Penitentials=\n or Confessional-books, which, after the pattern of forensic\n productions, settle the amount of penal exactions for all\n conceivable sins in proportion to their enormity. The Penitential\n erroneously ascribed to Theodore archbishop of Canterbury\n (\u00a7 90, 8) is the model upon which most of these are constructed.\n The Confessional-books that go under the names of the Venerable\n Bede and Egbert of York obtained particularly high favour. All\n these books, even in their earliest form extremely perverse and\n in their later much altered forms full of contradictions, errors\n and arbitrary positions, reduced the whole penitential practice\n to the utmost depths of externalization and corruption. How\n confused and warped the church idea of penitence had become is\n seen by the rendering of the word _p\u0153nitentia_ by penance, _i.e._\n satisfaction, atonement. In the Penitentials _p\u0153nitere_ is quite\n identical with _jejunare_. The idea of _p\u0153nitentia_ having been\n once associated with external performances, there could be no\n objection to substitute the customary penitential act of fasting\n (\u00a7 56, 7) for other spiritual exercises, or by adoption of\n the German legal practice of receiving composition to accept\n a money tax for ecclesiastical or benevolent purposes. In this\n way the first traces made their appearance of the Indulgences\n of the later Roman Catholic church. It therefore followed from\n this, that, as satisfaction could be rendered for all sins by\n corresponding acts of penance, so these works might also be\n performed vicariously by others. Thus in the Penitentials there\n grew up a system of =Penitential Redemptions= which formed the\n most despicable mockery of all earnest penitence. For example,\n a direction is given as to how a rich man may be absolved from\n a penance of seven years in three days, without inconveniencing\n himself, if he produces the number of men needed to fast for\n him. Such deep corruption of the penitential discipline, however,\n aroused, in the 8th and 9th centuries, a powerful reaction\n against the Confessional-books and their corrupt principles.\n It was first brought forward at the English Synod at Clovesho\n in A.D. 747; in its footsteps followed the French Synods of\n Chalons in A.D. 813, of Paris A.D. 829, of Mainz, A.D. 847.\n The Council of Paris ordered that all Confessional-books should\n be seized and burnt. They nevertheless still continued to be\n used.--There did not as yet exist any universal and unconditional\n compulsion to make confession. The custom, however, of a yearly\n confession in the Easter forty days\u2019 season was even during the\n 9th century so prevalent, that the omission of it was followed by\n a severe censure by the synodal court. The formul\u00e6 of absolution\n were only deprecative, not judicative.[251]\n\n\n\n\n IV. THEOLOGY AND ITS BATTLES.\n\n\n \u00a7 90. SCHOLARSHIP AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE.[252]\n\n With the exception of Ulfilas\u2019 famous efforts, the Arian period of\nGerman church history is quite barren in scientific performances. Yet\nthose few who preserved and fostered the scientific gains of earlier\ntimes were honoured and made use of by the noble-minded Ostrogoth king\nTheodoric, and under him Boethius [Bo\u00ebthius] and Cassiodorus (\u00a7 47, 23)\nperformed the praiseworthy task of saving the remnants of classical\nand patristic learning. For Spain the same office was performed by\nIsidore of Seville, who died in A.D. 636, whose text-books continued\nfor centuries, even on this side the Pyrenees, to supply the groundwork\nof scholarly studies. The numerous Scottish and Irish monasteries\nmaintained their reputation down to the 9th century for eminent piety\nand distinguished scholarship. Among the Anglo-Saxons the learned Greek\nmonk Theodore of Tarsus, who died in A.D. 690, and his companion Hadrian,\nenkindled an enthusiasm for classical studies, and the venerable Bede,\nwho died in A.D. 735, though he never quitted his monastery, became\nthe most famous teacher in all the West, The Danish pirates did indeed\ncrush almost to extinction the seeds of Anglo-Saxon culture, but Alfred\nthe Great sowed them anew, though this revival was only for a little\nwhile. In Gaul Gregory of Tours, who died in A.D. 595, was the last\nrepresentative of Roman ecclesiastical learning. After him we enter\nupon a chaos without form and void, from which the creative spirit of\nCharlemagne first called a new day which spread over the whole West its\nenlightening beams. This light, however, was put out even by the time of\nthe great emperor\u2019s grandson, and then we suddenly pass into the night\nof the _S\u00e6culum Obscurum_ (\u00a7 100).\n\n \u00a7 90.1. =Rulers of the Carolingian Line.=--=Charlemagne=,\n A.D. 768-814, may be regarded as beginning his scientific\n undertakings on his first entrance into Italy in A.D. 774.\n On this occasion he came to know the scholars Peter of Pisa,\n Paul Warnefrid, Paulinus of Aquileia, and Theodulf of Orleans,\n and brought them to his palace. From A.D. 782, however, the\n particularly brilliant star of his court was the Anglo-Saxon\n scholar Alcuin, whom Charles had met in Italy in the previous\n year. Scientific studies were now carried on in an exceedingly\n vigorous manner in the palace. The royal family, the whole court\n and its surroundings engaged upon them, but of them all Charles\n himself was the most diligent and successful of Alcuin\u2019s students.\n In the royal school, _Schola palatina_, which was ambulatory\n like the royal residence itself, the sons and daughters of the\n king with the children of the most distinguished families of\n the land received a high-class education. The teaching staff\n was constantly recruited from England, Ireland and Italy. After\n such preparations Charles issued in A.D. 787 a circular to all\n the bishops and abbots of his kingdom which enjoined under threat\n of his severe royal displeasure that schools should be erected in\n all monasteries and cathedral churches. Meanwhile his endeavours\n were most successful, but were rather one-sided in the preference\n given to classical and patristic literature, without a proper\n national foundation. Charles\u2019s great and generous nature indeed\n had a warm interest in national culture, but those around him,\n with the single exception of Paul Warnefrid, had in consequence\n of their Latin monkish training lost all taste for German thought,\n language and nationality, and fearing lest such studies might\n endanger Christianity and cause a relapse into paganism, they\n did not help but rather hindered the king\u2019s effort to promote\n a national literature.--=Louis the Pious=, A.D. 814-840, had his\n weak government disturbed by the strifes of parties and of the\n citizens. This period, therefore, was not specially favourable\n to the development of scientific studies, but the seed sown by\n his father still bore noble fruit. His son Lothair issued an\n ordinance which gave a new organization to the educational system\n of Italy, indeed created it anew. But Italy restless and full of\n factions was the land where least of all such institutions could\n be successfully conducted. A new golden age, however, dawned\n for France under =Charles the Bald=, A.D. 840-877. His court\n resembled that of his great grandfather in having gathered to\n it the \u00e9lite of scholars from all the West. The royal school\n gained new renown under the direction of _Joannes Scotus Erigena_.\n The cathedral and monastic schools of France vied with the most\n famous institutions of Germany (St. Gall, Fulda, Reichenau, etc.),\n and over the French episcopal sees men presided who had the most\n distinguished reputation for scholarship. But after Charles\u2019s\n death the bloom of the Carolingian period passed away with almost\n inconceivable rapidity amid the commotions of the time into thick\n darkness, chaos and barbarism.\n\n \u00a7 90.2. =The most distinguished Theologians of the\n Pre-Carolingian Age.=\n\n 1. In Merovingian France flourished =Gregory of Tours=,\n sprung of a good Roman family. When in A.D. 573, in\n order to get cured of an illness, he made a pilgrimage\n to the tomb of St. Martin (\u00a7 47, 14), he had the bishopric\n of Tours conferred upon him, where he continued till his\n death in A.D. 595. His _Historia Ecclesiastica Francorum_\n in ten Bks. affords us the only exact and trustworthy\n information we possess of the Merovingian age. The\n _Ll. VII. Miraculorum_ are a collection of several\n hagiographic writings, four of them recounting some\n of the innumerable miracles of St. Martin.\n\n 2. Scientific studies were prosecuted more vigorously on the\n other side of the Pyrenees than on this. In the empire of\n the Suevi (\u00a7 76, 4) archbishop =Martin of Braccara=, now\n Braga, distinguished himself in the work of Catholicising\n the Arian population. He was previously abbot of the\n monastery of Dumio, and died about A.D. 580. He was a\n voluminous writer on church law and also in the departments\n of moral and ascetical theology. His writings in the latter\n section have so much in common with those of Seneca that\n they were at one time ascribed to the Roman moralist. The\n treatise _De Correctione Rusticorum_ is very important for\n the history of the morals, legal institutions and culture\n of that period.--The great star of the Spanish Visigothic\n kingdom was =Isidorus [Isidore] Hispalensis=, who died\n in A.D. 636. He was descended from a distinguished Gothic\n family, and, as successor of his brother Leander, rose to\n the archbishopric of Seville (Hispalis). His writings are\n diligent compilations, which have preserved to us many\n fragments and items of information otherwise unknown.\n Incomparably greater, however, was the service they rendered\n in conveying classical and patristic learning to the German\n world of that age. His most comprehensive work consists\n of xx. Bks. _Originum s. Etymologiarum_, an encyclop\u00e6dic\n exhibition of the whole field of knowledge of the day. He\n also wrote a _Chronicon_ reaching down to A.D. 627, and\n _Hist. de regibus Gotorum_, a shorter _Hist. Vandalorum\n et Suevorum_, and a continuation of Jerome\u2019s _Catalogus\n de viris illustr_. Of more importance than his numerous\n compilations of mystico-allegorical expositions of Scripture\n are the iii. Bks. _Sententiarum_, a well-arranged system of\n doctrine and morals from patristic passages, especially from\n Augustine and Gregory the Great, and the _Lb. II. de ecclest.\n officiis_. The two last-named works were highly prized\n as text-books throughout the Middle Ages. The two books\n _Contra Jud\u00e6os_ belong to the department of apologetics.\n He also composed a monastic rule (comp. further \u00a7 87, 1\n and 88, 1).--Isidore\u2019s elder brother =Leander of Seville=,\n who died in A.D. 590, had a good reputation as a church\n leader (\u00a7 76, 2; 88, 1), and had no insignificant rank\n as a theological writer. The same may be said of the two\n bishops of Toledo, =Ildefonsus=, who died in A.D. 669, and\n =Julianus=, who died in A.D. 690.\n\n 3. England\u2019s greatest and most famous teacher was the\n Anglo-Saxon, the =Venerable Bede=. Trained in the monastery\n of Wearmouth, he subsequently took up his residence in\n the monastery of Jarrow, where he died in A.D. 735. He\n was a proficient in all the sciences of his time and\n withal a model of humility, piety and amiability. While\n his numerous pupils reached the highest places in the\n service of the church, their famous teacher continued\n in quiet retirement as a simple monk. He himself wished\n nothing else. Even on his deathbed he continued unweariedly\n to teach and write. Immediately before his death he\n dictated the last chapter of an Anglo-Saxon translation\n of the Gospel of John. By far his most important work\n for us is the _Hist. ecclest. gentis Anglorum_ in 5 Bks.\n reaching down to A.D. 731 (Engl. Transl. by Giles, Lond.,\n 1840; and by Gidley, Lond., 1871). Connected with this are\n his biographies of several saints of his native land, also\n a history of the monastery of Wearmouth, and a _Chronicon\n de sex \u00e6tatibus mundi_ reaching down to A.D. 729. His\n commentaries ranging over almost all the books of the Old\n and New Testament give evidence of a wonderful knowledge\n of the fathers. His numerous sermons are mostly exegetical\n and practical, rarely doctrinal. He was distinguished too\n as a poet in Latin as well as in his mother tongue.\n\n \u00a7 90.3. =The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of\n Charlemagne.=\n\n 1. The brightest star in the theological firmament of this\n period was the Anglo-Saxon =Alcuin= (Albinus) with the\n Horatian surname of Flaccus, which he got for his poetical\n productions. He was educated in the famous school of York\n under Egbert and Elbert. When the latter was made archbishop\n in A.D. 766, Alcuin undertook the presidency of the schools.\n While on a visit to Rome in A.D. 781 he met Charlemagne who\n took him to his court, where he became the emperor\u2019s teacher,\n friend and most trusted counsellor. Down to his death in\n A.D. 804 he was the king\u2019s right hand in all religious\n ecclesiastical and educational matters. In order to allay\n a feeling of home-sickness, he undertook a journey in\n A.D. 789 to his native country as ambassador of Charlemagne,\n returned in A.D. 793, and did not again quit France. In\n A.D. 796 Charles gave him the abbacy of Tours. He soon\n raised its monastic school to the highest rank as a seminary\n of learning. His exegetical works are mere compilations. The\n _Ll. II. de fide s. et Individu\u00e6 Trinitatis_ may be regarded\n as his dogmatic masterpiece; a compendium of dogmatics based\n upon Augustine\u2019s writings. The _Qu\u00e6stiones de Trin._ treat\n of the same matter in the catechetical form of question and\n answer. He contributed to the doctrinal controversies of his\n time the _Libellus de processione Spiritus S._ (\u00a7 91, 2) and\n by several learned controversial tracts against the leaders\n of the Adoptionists (\u00a7 91, 1). It is doubtful whether at all,\n and if so to what extent, he had to do with the composition\n of the _Libri Carolini_ (\u00a7 94, 1) which appeared during his\n stay in England. His numerous epistles, about 300 in number,\n are very important for the history of his times. In his\n Latin poems he sometimes very happily imitates his classical\n models.[253]\n\n 2. =Paulus Diaconus= or Paul (the son of) Warnefrid, of\n an honourable Longobard family, was next to Alcuin the\n most distinguished scholar of his age. Probably sorrow\n at the overthrow of his people (\u00a7 82, 2) drove him into\n the monastery of Monte Cassino; but Charlemagne took\n him to his court in A.D. 782, where he was an object\n of admiration as a Homer among the Grecians, a Virgil,\n Horace, Tibullus, among the Latinists, and a Philo (!)\n among the Hebraists. Love of his native land, however,\n led him back to his monastery in A.D. 786, where he died\n at a very advanced age in A.D. 795. What was specially\n praiseworthy in this learned and amiable man, all the more\n that few then took interest in those matters, was love and\n enthusiasm for the language, the national legends and heroic\n tales, the old laws and customs of his fellow-countrymen.\n His most important work is the _Historia s. de Gestis\n Langobardorum_ in 6 bks., reaching down to A.D. 774. The\n earlier _Hist. Romana_, composed at the wish of a daughter\n of king Desiderius, is, so far as its earlier periods are\n concerned, compiled from the classical historians, but for\n the later periods down to the overthrow of the Gothic rule\n is more independent. At the Frankish court he composed the\n _Hist. Episcoporum Mettensium_. He was also distinguished\n as a poet. On his _Homiliarius_ comp. \u00a7 88, 1.[254]\n\n 3. =Theodulf, bishop of Orleans=, distinguished as a Christian\n poet and learned theologian, and especially as a promoter\n of popular education, stood in high repute with Charlemagne,\n but under Louis the Pious, being suspected of treasonable\n correspondence with Bernard of Italy, was deposed and\n banished in A.D. 818. Subsequently, however, he was\n pardoned and recalled, but died in A.D. 821 before he\n reached his diocese. His book _De Spiritu S._ was a\n contribution to the controversy about the procession\n of the Holy Spirit (\u00a7 91, 2). At Charlemagne\u2019s request\n he described and explained the baptismal ceremony in the\n book _De ordine baptismi_. His numerous poems have been\n published in 6 bks.\n\n 4. =Paulinus=, patriarch of Aquileia, who died in A.D. 804,\n and bishop =Leidrad of Lyons=, who died in A.D. 813, took\n part in Alcuin\u2019s controversy against the Adoptionists by\n the publication of able treatises.\n\n 5. Of the works of =Hatto=, abbot of Reichenau, subsequently\n bishop of Basel, who died in A.D. 836, we still have\n the so-called _Capitulare Hattonis_, with prefatory\n directions for the official guidance of the Basel clergy,\n and the _Visio Wettini_, describing the vision of a monk\n of Reichenau called Wettin, who in A.D. 824 three days\n before his death was conducted by an angel through hell,\n purgatory and paradise. Hatto wrote it in prose and Walafrid\n Strabo rendered it into verse. It made a great impression\n on his contemporaries and was probably not without influence\n upon Dante\u2019s _Divina Comedi\u00e1_.\n\n \u00a7 90.4. =The most distinguished Theologians of the Age of Louis\n the Pious.=\n\n 1. =Agobard of Lyons=, a Spaniard by birth, died as\n archbishop of Lyons in A.D. 840. As the resolute defender\n of the integrity of the empire and the head of the national\n church party among the Frankish clergy, he was drawn into\n a conspiracy against Louis the Pious in A.D. 833 (\u00a7 82, 4),\n which led to his deposition and banishment in A.D. 835.\n After two years, however, he was pardoned. He was a man\n of remarkable culture and extraordinary force of character,\n and withal a vigorous opponent of all ecclesiastical and\n extra-ecclesiastical superstition. On his writings referring\n to these matters see \u00a7 92, 2. In the book _Adv. dogma\n Felicis_ he contended against Adoptionism (\u00a7 91, 1). In\n connection with his battle against the insolence and pride\n of the numerous and wealthy Jews in his diocese he wrote and\n dedicated to the emperor the accusatory tract _De insolentia\n Jud\u00e6orum_, followed by several similar addresses to the\n most influential councillors of the crown. Another series\n of writings from his pen was devoted to the vindication\n of the attitude which he had assumed in the struggle\n between Louis the Pious and his sons. Several treatises\n on the position and task, the rights and duties of the\n ministerial office show a reformatory tendency. He engaged\n in a passionate controversy with Amalarius of Metz about\n the necessity of a liturgical reform. Against Fredigis of\n Tours, Alcuin\u2019s successor, he maintained the view regarding\n the prophets and apostles that the Holy Spirit _non solum\n sensum pr\u00e6dicationis et modos vel argumenta dictionum\n inspiraverit, sed etiam ipsa corporalia verba extrinsecus\n in ora illorum ipse formaverit_.\n\n 2. =Claudius, bishop of Turin=, who died in A.D. 839, was\n also a Spaniard by birth and a scholar of Felix of Urgel\n (\u00a7 91, 1), without, however, imbibing his heretical views.\n He was throughout his whole career a zealous and determined\n reformer. His reformatory notions were set forth first\n of all in his exegetical works that covered almost the\n whole range of Scripture. Of these only the commentary\n on Galatians is now extant. He also vindicated his position\n against the attacks of his old friend the abbot Theodemir\n in his _Apologeticus_ (\u00a7 92, 2).\n\n 3. =Jonas of Orleans=, the successor of Theodulf, was one of\n the most distinguished prelates of his age, who wrought\n earnestly and successfully for the restoring of discipline\n and order in his diocese. In the struggle between Louis the\n Pious and his sons he resolutely took the side of the old\n king. He died in A.D. 844. His three books, _De institutione\n laicali_ constitute a handbook of morals for married\n persons, which also, because it deals with the sins and\n vices that were then rampant, is of value as a picture of\n the moral condition of his age. The book _De institutione\n regia_, addressed to Louis\u2019 son Pepin, may be regarded\n as an appendix to the former treatise. In opposition to\n the iconoclastic opinions of Claudius (\u00a7 92, 2) he wrote\n _Ll. III. De cultu imaginum_.\n\n 4. The principal work of the priest =Amalarius of Metz= is\n his _De ecclesiasticis officiis_ in 4 bks., a detailed\n description of all the ceremonies of public worship and\n the ecclesiastical furniture and vestments, with many\n arbitrary mystico-allegorical explanations, which called\n forth a crushing rejoinder from Agobard. On his revision\n of the rule of Chrodegang, see \u00a7 84, 4.\n\n 5. From the pen of the German monk =Christian Druthmar= of Old\n Corbei we have a commentary on Matthew, which is remarkable\n for the doctrine of the Lord\u2019s Supper which it sets forth\n (\u00a7 91, 3), as well as for the hermeneutical principle there\n laid down, that first and foremost the exegete must secure\n a thorough understanding of the historical literal sense,\n before he may think of developing the spiritual sense, which\n must have the former as its basis.\n\n 6. =Rab\u0103nus [Rabanus] Magnentius Maurus=, the most\n distinguished scholar of his age, was descended from an\n old Roman family but one that had long been Germanized at\n Mainz. His earliest education was received at the monastery\n of Fulda. He then became a pupil of Alcuin at Tours. In\n A.D. 803 he became himself a teacher at Tours, and in\n A.D. 822 was made abbot of Fulda. After the death of Louis\n the Pious he took the side of Lothair against Louis the\n German, and was consequently obliged to resign his position\n as abbot and to quit Fulda in A.D. 842. Subsequently,\n however, he obtained Louis\u2019 favour, and upon Otgar\u2019s\n death in A.D. 847 (\u00a7 87, 3) was appointed his successor\n in the archiepiscopal see of Mainz. He died in A.D. 856.\n The monastic school at Fulda was raised by him to the\n highest eminence. His commentaries extending over almost\n all the Old and New Testaments are mainly occupied with\n the development of the so-called spiritual sense, manifest\n wonderful familiarity with the writings of the Latin fathers\n from Ambrose to Bede, and were held in the highest esteem\n throughout the Middle Ages. The same may be said of his\n numerous homilies. The encyclop\u00e6dic work _De universo_\n in 22 bks., is a continuation of Isidore\u2019s _Origines_.\n His book _De institutione clericorum_ in 3 bks. affords\n a summary of all that was then to be learnt by the clergy\n for the practical work of the ministry. The _Tractatus de\n diversis qu\u00e6stionibus ex V. et N. T. contra Jud\u00e6os_ is an\n apologetic treatise. He wrote against Gottschalk\u2019s doctrine\n of predestination in a letter to bishop Noting of Verona\n (\u00a7 91, 5), and another to the abbot Eigil of Pr\u00fcm against\n Radbert\u2019s doctrine of the Lord\u2019s Supper (\u00a7 91, 3). Of his\n many other works we may mention a _Martyrologium_ based\n upon ancient authorities.\n\n 7. =Walafrid Strabo= received his early training in the\n monastery of Reichenau. He studied subsequently under\n Rabanus at Fulda, in which institution he became a teacher.\n About A.D. 842 he was made abbot of Reichenau; the seminary\n here he raised to high repute, although he died in his\n early prime in A.D. 849. Among his evangelical writings\n his so-called _Gloss\u00e6 ordinari\u00e6_, _i.e._ short explanations\n of the Latin text of the Bible, mostly culled from the\n commentaries of Rabanus, were extremely popular, and\n continued in use throughout the Middle Ages as an exegetical\n handbook. In the liturgical department we have his treatise\n _De exordiis et incrementis rerum ecclesiasticarum_, in\n which he expresses himself on the image controversy in\n the spirit of the old Frankish church (\u00a7 92, 1). Walafrid\n was also famous as a writer of sacred and secular poems.\n\n \u00a7 90.5. =The Most Distinguished Theologians of the Age of Charles\n the Bald.=\n\n 1. The powerful metropolitan =Hincmar of Rheims=, who died\n in A.D. 882 (\u00a7 82, 7; 83, 2), was not indeed strong in\n dogmatics, but in his writings just as well as in his life\n and struggle he was heart and soul a church leader and\n statesman. His most important work from a theological point\n of view is the _Capitula Synodica ad presbyteros parochi\u00e6\n su\u00e6_ on various points of worship and discipline, a notable\n witness to the zeal and care which this man, so much taken\n up with affairs of state and ecclesiastical controversies,\n showed in the discharge of his ministerial duties. Of his\n writings in connection with the Gottschalk controversy\n (\u00a7 91, 5, 6) only the prolix work _De predest. Dei et libero\n arbitrio_ vindicating the decrees of Quiersy of A.D. 853 are\n now extant.\n\n 2. =Paschasius Radbertus=, who died about A.D. 865, was\n monk, and, from A.D. 844-851, also abbot of the monastery\n of Corbei in Picardy. But among the monks of that place\n there was a cotery which occasioned the most profound grief\n to the pious-minded abbot; especially the learned monk\n Ratramnus under the protection of court favour took delight\n in contesting the somewhat ultra-pietistic views of his\n abbot. Probably it was this that led Radbertus to resign his\n office in A.D. 851. Besides the two treatises controverted\n by Ratramnus he composed biblical commentaries, which are\n more independent and contain more of his own than was common\n at that time. He also wrote 3 bks. on faith, love and hope;\n besides several Hagiographies.\n\n 3. =Ratramnus=, the antagonist of the former, takes a very\n prominent place among the clear and subtle thinkers of that\n age. Besides his controversial treatises against Radbertus\n (\u00a7 91, 3, 4) and against Hincmar (\u00a7 91, 5, 6), he took part\n in the burning controversy between the Greeks and Latins\n (\u00a7 67, 1) and wrote, _Contra Gr\u00e6corum opposita Romanam eccl.\n infamantium_.\n\n 4. =Florus Magister= was a cleric of the diocese of Lyons\n distinguished no less for great learning than for poetic\n gifts. His principal work _De actione Missarum, s. expositio\n in Canonem Miss\u00e6_ is, notwithstanding its title, not so\n much a liturgical treatise as a controversial tract against\n Radbertus\u2019 doctrine of the Eucharist (\u00a7 91, 3). In the\n liturgical controversy between Agobard and Amalarius,\n he took the side of Agobard and argued against Amalarius\n in several epistles. In the predestinarian controversy\n he published the work _Contra J. Scoti Erigen\u00e6 erroneas\n definitiones_ (\u00a7 91, 5). He also composed a _Martyrologium_.\n\n 5. =Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt=, who died in A.D. 853, won\n great reputation not only by his compiled exegetical works\n and his _Homiliarium_ for the festival part of the year,\n but also as author of a Church History, which, however, is\n nothing more than a working up of extracts from Rufinus.\n\n 6. =Servatus Lupus=, scholar of Rabanus, was from A.D. 842\n abbot of Ferri\u00e8res. His 130 epistles are important for the\n history of his time, as he was in constant correspondence\n with the most famous men of his day. On the side of\n Gottschalk in the predestinarian controversy he wrote\n his treatise _De tribus qu\u00e6stionibus_.\n\n 7. =Remigius of Auxerre=, who died about A.D. 908, was\n teacher of the monastic school at Rheims, and subsequently\n at Paris. Besides numerous commentaries on the books of\n the Old and New Testaments in the usual compilatory and\n allegorical style, he has left in his _Expositio Miss\u00e6_\n a mystico-allegorical explanation of the ceremonies of\n the mass.\n\n 8. =Regius of Pr\u00fcm=, abbot of the monastery there,\n subsequently resigned his rank and retired into the\n monastery of Treves. He died in A.D. 915. His _Chronicon_\n reaching down to A.D. 906 is of great value for his own\n times. His 2 bks. _De cantis synodalibus et disciplinis\n ecclesiasticis_ are a directory for the visitation of\n churches to be carried out by means of synodical judicatures.\n\n \u00a7 90.6.\n\n 9. =Anastasius Bibliothecarius= was abbot of a Roman monastery\n and librarian under popes Nicholas I., Hadrian II. and\n John VIII., and visited the Byzantine court in A.D. 869\n as member of an embassy of Emperor Louis II., and was also\n present at the 8th \u0153cumenical Council at Constantinople\n (\u00a7 67, 1). He translated the acts of this synod into Latin,\n wrote the lives of several saints, and composed a _Hist.\n ecclest. s. Chronographia tripartita_ drawn from three\n Byzantine historical works of that period. To the _Liber\n Pontificalis s. de vitio Roman. pontificum_, reaching down\n to the death of Stephen V. in A.D. 891, which has been\n ascribed to him, he can only have contributed the _Vita_\n of pope Nicholas I., and perhaps also the _Vit\u00e6_ of his\n four immediate predecessors. It is a history of the popes\n gathered together from various sources that had their\n origin at different times, the earliest of which goes back\n to A.D. 354. The oldest extant recension of it reaches\n down to Pope Conon in A.D. 687, and forms an important\n link in the chain of Romish fabrications and interpolations,\n by means of which the numerous fabricated acts of Romish\n martyrs, as well as already existing fables referring\n to particular popes and emperors (comp. _e.g._ \u00a7 42, 1),\n gained credence, more recently introduced liturgical\n practices had assigned to them a more remote antiquity,\n and the popes were represented as legislators for the\n whole church. The complete biographies often written by\n contemporaries preserved in this collection are of great\n historical value.\n\n 10. =Eulogius of Cordova= was chosen archbishop in A.D. 858,\n but was not received by the Moorish government, and suffered\n martyrdom in A.D. 859 (\u00a7 81, 1). The most important of his\n writings is the historical _Memoriale Sanctorum s. Ll. III.\n de Martyrib. Cordubens_. The _Apologeticus Sanctorum_ is a\n continuation of the former with violent invectives against\n Islam and its false prophet. =Paulas [Paul] Alvarus= of\n Cordova, from his youth closely associated with Eulogius,\n wrote his life and vindicated in a _Judiculus luminosus_\n the tendency to court martyrdom then frequently shown by\n Christians but often objected to.\n\n \u00a7 90.7.\n\n 11. =Joannes Scotus Erigena=, the miracle as well as the\n enigma of his age, by birth probably an Irishman, who\n flashed out as a brilliant meteor in the court of Charles\n the Bald and passed away from view, without its being known\n whence he came or whither he went, was the greatest scholar,\n the most profound, subtle and liberal thinker of his times,\n with a speculative power the like of which was not seen\n for centuries before and after. He died after A.D. 877.\n His extant works embrace fragments of his commentary\n on the Areopagite (\u00a7 47, 11), and a Latin faithful,\n literal and therefore hard to understand translation\n of the Areopagite\u2019s writings, also a translation of a\n work of Maximus Confessor on difficult passages from\n the writings of Gregory Nazianzen (_Loca ambigua_), his\n controversial treatise _De pr\u00e6destinatione_ (\u00a7 91, 5),\n a homily on the prologue of John\u2019s gospel, a fragment of\n a speculative-mystical treatise _De egressu et regressu\n anim\u00e6 ad Deum_, and the _Opus palmare_ of the author, by\n far the most comprehensive of his writings, the 5 bks. _De\n divisione natur\u00e6_. Based upon the gnosis of the school of\n Origen, but resting mainly on the theosophical mysticism of\n the Areopagite and the dialectic of Maximus Confessor, he\n produced in this treatise a system of speculative theology\n of magnificent dimensions which, in spite of every effort\n to hold by the doctrinal position of the church, is but\n one piece of heterodoxy from beginning to end. He starts\n from the principle that true theology and true philosophy\n are only formally different, but essentially identical.\n The _Fides_ have to express the truth as _Theologia\n affirmativa_ (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae) in the biblically revealed and\n ecclesiastically communicated shell, accommodating itself\n to the finite understanding by figurative and metaphorical\n expressions. But the task of the _Ratio_ is to strip off\n this shell (_Theologia negativa_, \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae), and by means\n of speculation raise the faith to knowledge. The title of\n this book is to be explained from its fundamental thought\n that nature, _i.e._ the sum of all being and non-being, by\n which he understands everything the existence of which is\n yet unknown, or merely potential, or necessarily belonging\n to things past, comprises four forms of existence:--_Natura\n creatrix non creata_, _i.e._ God as the potential sum of\n all being, _Natura creatrix creata_, _i.e._ the eternal\n thoughts of God regarding the world as the eternal primal\n types of all creation, _Natura creata non creans_, _i.e._\n the world in time as the visible product and sensible\n realization of the eternal invisible world of ideas,\n and _Natura nee creata nee creans_, _i.e._ God as the\n final end of all created being, to whom all creation\n when all contradictions have been overcome returns in\n the \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. The Aristotelian threefold\n division into the unmoved and moving, the moved and moving,\n and the moved and not moving, seems to have afforded\n him the starting-point for his fourfold division; while\n the divergent conception of them, their enlargement and\n development may be traced to Platonic and Neo-Platonic\n influences.--That such a system must essentially tend\n to pantheism soon became evident, but on the other hand\n Erigena\u2019s own Christian consciousness strongly reacted\n against the pantheistic current of his thought, and he was\n anxiously concerned to preserve the fundamental truths of\n Christian Theism. By the fundamental fourfold division of\n his system he could not give to the doctrine of the Trinity\n a necessary and controlling but only an accidental and\n occasional position. Only the presence of this doctrine\n in Scripture and tradition obliged him to maintain it.\n He speaks indeed of three persons in God, but he uses the\n expression only in an improper sense, and has no intention\n of explaining Father, Son and Spirit as mere names of\n divine relations (_habitudines_, _relationes_): _Pater\n vult, Filius facit, Spir. S. perficit_. In the Son as\n the creative Word of God are all original causes of\n things, undistinguished, unordered; by the Spirit are\n they differentiated into the various phenomena and\n effects in the kingdom of nature as well as of grace.\n On his doctrine of evil, comp. \u00a7 91, 5. As Origen has\n in himself the germs of all orthodoxy and heterodoxy of\n the ancient church undeveloped and uncontrasted, so also\n in Erigena are there the germs of the contradictions\n of later scholasticism and mysticism. Had he lived\n three centuries later he would probably have set the\n whole learned world astir, but now he passed unhonoured,\n misunderstood, scarcely regarded worth dealing with for\n heresy (\u00a7 91, 5), and apparently leaving little trace\n behind him. His great work _De divisione natur\u00e6_ was\n first condemned by a provincial Council at Sens, and\n this judgment was confirmed by Honorius III. in A.D. 1225.\n The book was characterized as _Scatens vermibus h\u00e6retic\u00e6\n pravitatis_; orders were given that it should be sought out\n everywhere and burnt.[255]\n\n \u00a7 90.8. =The Monastic and Cathedral Schools= had as their\n main task the training of capable servants for the church. The\n handbooks mainly in use were those of Cassiodorus, Isidore, Bede,\n Alcuin and Rabanus. Great diligence was shown, especially in the\n monasteries, in founding libraries and multiplying books by means\n of good copies. Alcuin made a threefold division of all sciences;\n ethics, physics and theology. Ethics corresponded to what was\n afterwards called the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric and Dialectic);\n Physics to the Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and\n Astronomy). These two together comprehended the whole range\n of the seven _free_ arts, _i.e._ worthy of the study of a free\n man, liberal studies. Latin was the language of intercourse\n and instruction. Greek, which was spread by Theodore of Tarsus,\n a Greek monk, who, after being long a teacher in Rome, was in\n A.D. 669 made archbishop of Canterbury, and by his pupils was\n also taught in the more important schools. Acquaintance with\n Hebrew was much more rare, and was often obtained by means\n of intercourse with learned Jews. Boethius [Bo\u00ebthius] was the\n vehicle of instruction in philosophy. In the 9th century the works\n ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite (\u00a7 47, 11) were sent to\n France as a present from the Byzantine emperor Michael to Louis\n of France. He was identified with the founder of the church of\n Paris of the same name, and patriotic feeling gave an immense\n impulse to the study of his writings. The abbot Hildmin of\n St. Denys, and subsequently Joannes Erigena, translated them\n into Latin. Encyclop\u00e6dic works, giving compendiums of the whole\n range of the sciences then known, were produced by Isidore and\n Rabanus.[256]--Continuation, \u00a7 99, 3.\n\n \u00a7 90.9. =Various Branches of Theological Science.=--The labours\n of the German church in the department of scientific theology was\n directed to the church\u2019s immediate needs, and hence the character\n of its theology was biblical and practical, and the reputation of\n the fathers so extravagantly high, that wherever it was possible,\n teaching, preaching, proving and refuting were all carried on in\n their very words. Charlemagne\u2019s powerful efforts in the direction\n of reform gave even in the department of theology abundant\n occasion and encouragement to scholars round about him to a\n more independent procedure, and the theological controversies\n of the 9th century afforded sufficient scope to independent\n thinking.\n\n 1. =Exegesis= on the basis of the Vulgate was most diligently\n prosecuted. Charlemagne set Alcuin to produce a critical\n revision of its very corrupt text. Agobard combated the\n mechanical theory of inspiration by the assertion that the\n holy prophets were something better than Balaam\u2019s ass. Only\n one out of the very numerous exegetes, Christian Druthmar,\n recognised it as a first principle, most essential and\n necessary, if not the only task of the exegete, to bring\n out the grammatical and historical sense of the words\n of Scripture. The literal sense was and continued to\n be regarded as the scullion of interpretation, while it\n was thought that the most precious treasures of Divine\n wisdom were to be found in the _allegorical_ sense,\n _i.e._ with application to the mysteries of the faith,\n the _tropological_ or moral, and the _anagogical_, which\n aimed at the elevation of the mind.\n\n 2. In =Systematic Theology= Apologetics was most feebly\n represented. The humble form of the paganism to be\n controverted did not require elaborate defences of the\n Christian faith, but the advance of Mohammedanism and the\n great number of Jews established in France, especially\n under Louis of France, by means of their wealth and bribes,\n developed an incredible arrogance. While Jewish and pagan\n slaves were not allowed to have baptism, Christian slaves\n on the other hand were compelled to observe the Sabbath,\n to work on Sunday, to eat flesh on fast days; they openly\n blasphemed Christ, insulted the church and sold Christian\n slaves to the Saracens. Agobard fought against them\n energetically by word, Scripture and action, but the\n needy court protected them. Isidore and Rabanus in their\n apologetical writings proved the nullity of the Jewish\n beliefs. From the time of Charlemagne theologians were\n much more eagerly engaged in polemics (\u00a7\u00a7 91, 92). Isidore\n in his _Ll. III. Sententiarum_ collected from patristic\n passages a system of doctrine and morals, which continued\n a favourite text-book for centuries. Alcuin\u2019s _Ll. III.\n De fide Trinitatis_ form a compendium of dogmatics. The\n introduction of the Pseudo-Areopagita into the West prepared\n the way for speculative mysticism, which had its first\n representative in Joannes Scotus Erigena.\n\n 3. In =Practical Theology= homiletical literature was but\n poorly represented. Besides the Homiliarius of Paul\n Warnefrid (\u00a7 88, 1), we meet with Bede, Walafrid, Rabanus\n and Haymo as authors of sermons. On the other hand great\n and constant interest was shown in developing a theory of\n worship, in describing it and giving a mystical explanation\n of it. Isidore with _De officiis ecclesiasticis_ was\n the first in this department. Charlemagne set to all his\n theologians the task of explaining the baptismal ceremony.\n In the time of Louis the Pious, Agobard appears as a\n reformer of the liturgy, in connection with which he\n passionately contended against Amalarius, against whom\n also Florus Magister entered the lists. Important works\n in this department were also written by Rabanus, Walafrid\n and Remigius. On works treating of church law and church\n discipline, see \u00a7 87 and \u00a7 89, 5.\n\n 4. Finally, as to the department of =Historical Theology= all\n knowledge of earlier church history was derived from Rufinus\n and Cassiodorus. Even Haymo\u2019s Church History is made up\n simply of extracts from Rufinus. All the greater diligence\n was shown throughout the Middle Ages in chronicling the\n ecclesiastical and political events of the immediate\n present and also keeping the past in memory. This endeavour\n shows itself in a threefold direction. (a) The writing of\n =National Chronicles=. The Visigoths had their Isidore, the\n Ostrogoths their Cassiodorus,[257] the Longobards their Paul\n Warnefrid, the Franks their Gregory of Tours, the Britons\n their Gildas[258] and Nennius,[259] the Anglo-Saxons\n their Bede.--(b) Then we have the clumsy compilations of\n =Annals= and =Chronicles= which most monasteries produced,\n and which were continued from year to year.--(c) And\n further, =Biographies=, both of distinguished statesmen\n and distinguished churchmen. The _Vit\u00e6 Sanctorum_ are\n innumerable, mostly quite uncritical, composed purely for\n the glorification of some local saint. To this category\n belong the numerous _Martyrologies_, arranged in the\n order of the Calendar. Among the most famous were those\n prepared by Bede, Ado of Vienne, Usuardus, Rabanus, Notker\n Balbulus, Wandelbert, etc. In the department of historical\n biography proper may be included the portion of the\n _Liber pontificalis_ belonging to this period, the _Hist.\n Mettensium Episcoporum_ of Paul Warnefrid, and Isidore\u2019s\n continuation of Jerome\u2019s _Catalogus_, which was further\n continued by Ildefonsus of Toledo.\n\n \u00a7 90.10. =Anglo-Saxon Culture under Alfred the Great=,\n A.D. 871-901.--Alfred the Great, the greatest and noblest of\n all the kings that England has ever had, was the grandson of\n Egbert who had united in A.D. 827 the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.\n When five years old he received papal anointing at Rome and two\n years later in company with his pious father he travelled thence,\n made a considerable stay at the brilliant court of Charlemagne\n where he received the impress of its superior culture, and\n began his reign in A.D. 871 in his 22nd year when the kingdom\n was sorely oppressed by Danish invasions. He applied all the\n energy of his mind to the difficult problems of government, to\n the emancipation and civilization of his country and people by\n driving out the Danish robbers, and then improving the internal\n condition of the land by attention to agriculture, industry and\n trade, by a wise organization, legislation and administration,\n by the founding of churches, monasteries and schools, and\n by furthering every scientific endeavour from a thoroughly\n national point of view. When already thirty-six years of age\n he learnt the Latin language and used this acquirement for the\n enriching of Anglo-Saxon literature by translations from his\n own hand, with many important additions of his own, of Bo\u00ebthius\u2019\n _Consolatio philosophi\u00e6_, the Universal History of Orosius, Bede\u2019s\n History of the Church of England and the _Regula pastoralis_ of\n Gregory the Great. He also began a translation of the Psalms.\n He stimulated his learned friends to a like activity, among whom\n bishop Asser of Sherborne in his _Vita Alfredi_ (Engl. transl.\n in \u201cSix Old English Chronicles\u201d) has reared a worthy memorial\n of his master.[260]--Continuation, \u00a7 100, 1.\n\n\n \u00a7 91. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES.\n\n The first important heresy that grew up independently on German\nsoil was Adoptionism. This heresy took its rise at that point in the\ndevelopment of Christology that was reached by the 6th \u0153cumenical\nCouncil of Constantinople in A.D. 680 (\u00a7 52, 8), for it recognises\nthe double nature and the double will while denying the double sonship.\nFrankish orthodoxy, however, saw in it not a further development of\ndoctrine, but a relapse into Nestorianism, and so condemned the new\ndoctrine. During the same period the dogma of the procession of the\nHoly Spirit was the subject of lively controversy, and the Frankish\nchurch came forward as defender of Western orthodoxy against the Greeks.\nIn the Eucharistic controversy the most eminent Frankish theologians\nopposed the Transubstantiation doctrine of Balbutus [Balbulus].\nA further controversy as to the conception of the Blessed Virgin\nwas closely connected with the one just referred to. Neither of\nthem was made the subject of any synodal decision. On the other\nhand very definite synodal decisions were passed in reference to the\npredestination controversy, without, however, bringing that controversy\nby any means to a conclusion. Of subordinate importance was the dispute\nover the expression _Trina Deitas_.\n\n \u00a7 91.1. =The Adoptionist Controversy, A.D. 782-799.=--Of all\n Christian dogmas none were so offensive to the Moslems as that\n of the Trinity which to their barren monotheism necessarily\n appeared as Tritheism, and none were the subject of so much scorn\n as the idea that God should have a son. It need not, therefore,\n surprise us to find that Spanish theologians endeavoured to\n put this doctrine in a form as little offensive as possible\n to the Moslems. One =Migetius= went so far as to adopt a very\n crude form of Sabellianism, for he, undoubtedly approaching\n the Mohammedan view of the prophetic order, represented the\n Trinitarian development of the one Divine Being as a threefold\n historical manipulation of God: in David the person of the\n Father is revealed, in Christ as son of David that of the Son,\n and finally, in the Apostle Paul that of the Holy Spirit. At\n a Spanish synod of A.D. 782 he was successfully opposed by the\n archbishop =Elipandus of Toledo=, who took the opportunity of\n attempting a further development of the Christological dogma.\n This also was more fully elaborated by =Felix of Urgel= in\n the Spanish Mark. Both taught: That Christ is properly Son of\n God only according to His divine nature (_Filius Dei Natur\u00e2_);\n according to His human nature He is properly, like all of us,\n a servant of God, and only by the decision of the Divine will\n is He adopted as the Son of God (_Filius Dei Adoptivus_), just\n as all of us may by Him and after His example be raised from the\n condition of servant into the family of God. According to His\n Divine nature therefore He is the =Only Begotten=, according to\n His human nature the =First Begotten= Son of God. The adoption\n of the human nature into Divine Sonship began with its conception\n by the Holy Ghost, but was more definitely determined in His\n baptism, and perfected in His resurrection. The first scene of\n the controversy called forth by this doctrine was enacted on\n Spanish soil. Two representatives of the Asturian clergy, the\n presbyter Beatus of Libana and bishop Etherius of Osma, contended\n by word and writing against the heresy of Elipandus (A.D. 785).\n This was done perhaps with the view of emancipating the Asturian\n church from the see of Toledo then under Saracen domination. The\n Asturians applied to Hadrian I., who in an epistle to the bishops\n of Spain in A.D. 786 condemned Adoptionism as a heresy. The\n controversy entered upon a second stage through the interference\n of Charlemagne. The absence of Adoptionism in Frankish Spain\n afforded him an excuse for interfering, and he readily seized\n upon this, because it gave him an opportunity of posing as the\n defender of orthodoxy in the West, _i.e._ as Emperor _in esse_.\n Before a Synod at Regensburg in A.D. 792, Felix was compelled\n to renounce this heresy, and was sent to Rome to pope Hadrian I.\n There he had to make a second recantation, but escaped from\n prison and fled to Saracenic territory. In the meantime Alcuin\n had returned from his travels in England, and immediately engaged\n in controversy by addressing an affectionate exhortation to\n Felix. The Spaniards gave a very firm reply and Charlemagne\n then convened the famous \u0153cumenical German Synod of Frankfort\n in A.D. 794. After further investigation Adoptionism was again\n condemned, and the judgment of the synod, in order that it might\n have an \u0153cumenical character, was sent to Spain accompanied\n by four complete reports as representing the various national\n churches and authorities. But on the Spaniards this made little\n impression. Just as little effect had a learned controversial\n tract of Alcuin\u2019s, to which Felix made a smart rejoinder.\n Meanwhile Charlemagne sent a clerical commission under Leidrad\n of Lyons and Benedict of Aniane (\u00a7 85, 2) into the Spanish\n Mark, in order to root out the weeds of heresy that were growing\n there. Felix declared himself ready for further enquiry. At the\n national Synod of Aachen in A.D. 792 he disputed for six days\n with Alcuin, and declared himself at last thoroughly convinced.\n Alcuin and Paulinus of Aquileia published new controversial\n tracts, and Leidrad went a second time into the Spanish Mark\n where he succeeded in rooting out the heresy. But all the more\n determined were the bishops of Saracenic Spain in maintaining\n their doctrine, and Elipandus answered a conciliatory letter of\n Alcuin in a passionate and angry tone. Felix remained until the\n end of his life in A.D. 818 under the guardianship of the bishop\n of Lyons. Leidrad\u2019s successor, Agobard, found among his papers\n undoubted evidence that to the end he was at heart an Adoptionist,\n and from this took occasion to publish another controversial\n tract. This was the very last of these productions. But in Spain\n Adoptionism seems to have maintained its hold down to the second\n half of the 9th century. At last about that time Paulus Alvarus\n of Cordova (\u00a7 90, 6) contended with a certain Joannes Spalensis\n on account of his Adoptionist views. In the 12th century the\n controversy again broke out on German soil (\u00a7 102, 6).[261]\n\n \u00a7 91.2. =Controversy about the Procession of the Holy\n Spirit.=--At a Synod at Gentiliacum in A.D. 767, held for\n the purpose of meeting a Byzantine embassy about the iconoclast\n controversy, the addition to the creed of the _Filioque_ was\n spoken about (\u00a7 67, 1). The result of the discussion is unknown.\n In Charlemagne\u2019s time Alcuin and Theodulf defended the Latin\n doctrine in special treatises, and at a Synod at Friaul in\n A.D. 791 Paulinus of Aquileia justified its adoption into\n the creed and the Carolingian books (\u00a7 92, 1). The discussion\n was renewed when the Latin monks of Mount Olivet, blamed by\n the Greeks because of the addition, appealed to the usage of\n the Frankish church. Pope Leo III. communicated in regard to\n this with Charlemagne, and a Council at Aachen in A.D. 809\n defended the addition. But the pope, although not contesting\n the correctness of the doctrine, disallowed the change in the\n creed, and had two silver tablets erected in St. Peter\u2019s in Rome\n with the creed wanting the addition. This was evidently a damper\n upon the ecclesiastico-political movements of the emperor.\n\n \u00a7 91.3. =The Eucharistic Controversy, A.D. 844.=--Vacillations\n about the doctrine of the Supper (\u00a7 58, 2) lasted down to the\n 9th century. Paschasius Radbertus, monk at Corbie, undertook\n in A.D. 831, in his treatise _De Sanguine et corpore Domini_,\n theologically to justify, and on all sides to develop the\n doctrine of the Supper, which had long ago struck its roots\n in the practice of the church and the faith of the people.\n The air of genuine piety which meets us in this work impresses\n us favourably, and it cannot be denied that he had a profound\n perception of fulness, power, and depth of the Sacrament. It\n was, therefore, quite in accordance with popular belief. He\n could, also, refer to facts from the _Vit\u00e6 Sanctorum_, where\n the inner _Veritas_ had come to outer manifestation. He thinks\n that the fact that this did not always happen is to be accounted\n for partly by this, that the Supper in its very nature is\n a _Mysterium_ for faith and not a _Miraculum_ for unbelief,\n partly by the divine condescendence which takes into account the\n natural horror at flesh and blood, and would take away from the\n heathen all occasion for blasphemy. At this time, A.D. 831, the\n Scriptures were not appealed to. Meantime Radbertus was made\n abbot of Corbie, and in this important position he revised his\n work, and presented it to Charles the Bald in A.D. 844. The king\n called upon the learned monk, =Ratramnus= of Corbie, to express\n his opinion on the subject, and he was only too ready to do\n an injury to his abbot. Without naming him, he contested his\n doctrine in his treatise, _De corp. et sang. Domini ad Carolum\n Calvum_, with bitter criticism, and subtly developed his own\n view, according to which the body and blood of Christ are enjoyed\n only _spiritualiter et secundum potentiam_. Rabanus Maurus,\n Scotus Erigena, and Florus of Lyons also opposed the magical\n transformation doctrine of Radbertus in favour of a merely\n spiritual enjoyment. Hincmar and Haymo, on the other hand,\n took the side of Radbertus, while Walafrid Strabo, and the able,\n energetic Christian Druthmar, found in the idea of impanation\n and consubstantiation a more fitting expression for the solemn\n mystery. But Radbertus had spoken the word which gave clear\n utterance to the ecclesiastical feeling of the age; the protest\n of so many great authorities might delay, but could not destroy\n its effects. Continuation, \u00a7 101, 2.\n\n \u00a7 91.4. =Controversy about the Conception of the Virgin.=--This\n notion of the magical operation of the Divine prevailed with\n Radbertus when soon afterwards he undertook in his own way,\n and also in accordance with Ps. xxii. 10 and Jer. xxxi. 22,\n in the tract, _De partu virginali_, to establish the opinion\n already expressed by Ambrose and Jerome (\u00a7 57, 2), that Mary\n brought forth _utero clauso_, and without pain. Ratramnus also\n has left a treatise on this theme: _De eo quod Christus ex\n Virigine natus est_. He maintains equally with Radbertus that\n during conception as well as in bearing, the Virgin did not\n lose her virginity. But while Radbertus contended against those\n who taught less than this, _i.e._, that though Mary conceived\n as a virgin, she bore after the manner of all women, Ratramnus\n directed his attack against those who affirmed more than that,\n _i.e._, that Christ at His birth did not leave His mother\u2019s womb\n in the usual, natural manner, by His mother bearing Him. Further,\n while the former was angry at the profaning of the mystery of\n the birth of Christ, by ranking it under the laws of nature, the\n latter emphasized the fact that in no case should it be regarded\n as in itself ignominious to be placed under the laws of nature.\n Finally, while Radbertus unconditionally repudiated the position,\n _Vulvam aperuit_, Ratramnus felt compelled by Luke ii. 23 to\n admit it in a certain sense. C. v. \u201c_Utique vulvam aperuit,\n non et clausam corrumperet, sed et per eam su\u00e6 nativitatis\n ostium aperiret, sicut et in Ezech. xliv. 3 porta et clausa\n describitur et tamen narratur Domino aperta; non quod liminis\n sui fores dimoverit ad ejus egressum, sed quod sic clausa\n patuerit dominanti_,\u201d and c. viii. \u201c_Exivit clauso sepulchro\n (?) et ingressus foribus obseratis (Jo. xx. 9) ... ut et clausam\n relinqueret et per eam transiret ... nec haureundo patefecit_.\u201d\n The polemic, therefore, was most probably occasioned not by\n anything in the writings, but rather in their oral utterances.\n Neither understood the other\u2019s view, and the one drew consequences\n from the other\u2019s statements that were not warrantable. But when\n Ratramnus pretends to be debating, not with his abbot but with an\n unnamed German opponent, this can only be regarded as a literary\n artifice.\n\n \u00a7 91.5. =The Predestinarian Controversy A.D. 847-868.=--The\n earlier predestinarian controversy (\u00a7 53, 5), was, so far\n from being brought to a conclusion, that all the gradations\n of doctrinal views, from that of Semi-Pelagianism to a doctrine\n of predestination to condemnation that went far beyond Augustine,\n could find representatives among the teachers of the church. In\n the 9th century the controversy broke out in a passionate form.\n =Gottschalk=, the son of Berno, a Saxon count, had been placed\n by his parents when a child in the monastery of Fulda. A Synod\n at Mainz in A.D. 829 allowed him to go forth, but the abbot of\n Fulda at that time, Rabanus Maurus, got Louis the Pious to annul\n this dispensation. Transferred to the monastery of Orbais, in\n the diocese of Soissons, Gottschalk sought comfort in the study\n of the writings of Augustine, and was an enthusiastic defender\n of the doctrine of absolute predestination. In one point he\n even went beyond Augustine himself, for he taught a two-fold\n predestination (_Gemina pr\u00e6destinatio_), a predestination to\n salvation and a predestination to condemnation, while Augustine\n had spoken of the latter mostly as a giving over to deserved\n condemnation. He took advantage of two journeys into Italy in\n A.D. 840 and A.D. 847 for spreading his doctrine. Impelled with\n a vehement desire to make converts, he made an attempt upon\n bishop Noting of Verona. Through him Rabanus, from A.D. 847\n archbishop of Mainz, obtained information thereof, and issued\n to Noting, as well as to Count Eberhard of Friaul, with whom\n Gottschalk was living, threatening letters which distorted\n Gottschalk\u2019s doctrine in many particulars, and drew from it\n unfair consequences, making the _Pr\u00e6destinatio ad damnationem_\n a _Pr\u00e6destinatio ad peccatum_. Rabanus\u2019s own doctrine\n distinguished prescience and predestination, and placed the\n condemnation of the wicked under the former point of view. At\n the same time, in A.D. 848, he convened a Synod at Mainz, before\n which Gottschalk stated his doctrine without reserve, in the\n joyous conviction that it was in accordance with the doctrine\n of the church. But the Council excommunicated him, and assigned\n him for punishment to his metropolitan Hincmar of Rheims. Hincmar\n had him anew condemned at the Synod of Quiersy in A.D. 849,\n then, because he steadily refused to recant, had him savagely\n scourged and consigned to imprisonment for life in the monastery\n of Hautvilliers. Gottschalk offered to prove the justice of\n his cause by submitting to an ordeal; but Hincmar, though in\n other instances a defender of the ordeal, denounced this as the\n proposal of a second Simon Magus. The inhuman treatment of the\n poor monk, and the rejection of the doctrine of Augustine by two\n church leaders, occasioned a mighty commotion in the Frankish\n church, which was mainly directed against Hincmar. At first,\n bishop Prudentius of Troyes took the condemned monk\u2019s part. Then\n Charles the Bald asked the opinions of Ratramnus of Corbie and\n the abbot Servatus Lupus of Ferri\u00e8res. Both of these took the\n side of Gottschalk. Hincmar\u2019s position threatened to become very\n serious. He looked out for supporters, and succeeded in finding\n champions in the deacon Florus of Lyons, the priest Amalarius of\n Metz, and the learned Joannes Scotus Erigena. But the latter\u2019s\n advocacy was almost more dangerous to the metropolitan than the\n charges of his accusers. For the speculative Irishman founded\n his objections to the doctrine of predestination on the position,\n unheard of before in the West, that evil is only a \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f44\u03bd, and\n condemnation therefore not a positive punishment of God, but\n consisting only in the consciousness of a defect. Hincmar\u2019s\n position was now worse than ever, for his opponents made him\n responsible for the heresies of Scotus. And not only an old\n objector, Prudentius of Troyes in his _De pr\u00e6dest. c. Joh.\n Scotu_, but even archbishop Wessilo of Sens and the deacon\n Florus of Lyons, who had hitherto supported him, now put on\n their armour against him. But Charles the Bald took the part\n of the sorely-beset metropolitan, and summoned the national\n Synod of Quiersy of A.D. 853, where in four articles (_Capitula\n Carisiaca_), a modified Augustinianism, rejecting the _gemina\n pr\u00e6destinatio_, was set forth as the orthodox faith. The\n Neustrian objectors were now compelled to keep silence, but\n archbishop Remigius of Lyons set a Lothringian national Synod\n of Valence of A.D. 855 over against the Neustrian Synod. This\n Synod expressly condemned the decisions of the Synod of Quiersy,\n together with the Scottish mixture (_pultus Scotorum_), and\n laid down six conflicting articles as the standard of orthodoxy.\n Finally the rulers of the West Franks combined their forces and\n called an Imperial Synod at Savonni\u00e8res, a suburb of Toul, in\n A.D. 859. But harmony was not yet secured, and they were likely\n to part with bitter feelings, when Remigius made the proposal to\n reserve decision for a subsequent assembly to be convened in a\n less agitated time, and meanwhile to maintain the peace. This\n was agreed upon, and so the controversy put out of view, for\n the proposed assembly was never brought about. Gottschalk, left\n in the lurch by his former friends, now turned for help to the\n powerful pope Nicholas I. The pope ordered Hincmar to answer\n before the papal plenipotentiaries for his proceedings against\n the monk at the Synod of Metz in A.D. 863 (\u00a7 82, 7). Hincmar\n preferred not to comply to this demand, and to his delight the\n pope himself annulled the decisions of the Synod because his\n legates had been bribed. Moreover the metropolitan succeeded by\n intercession and well-planned letters in winning over the pope.\n Thus then Gottschalk was cheated out of his last hope. For twenty\n years he languished in prison, but with his latest breath he\n rejected every proposal of recantation. He died in A.D. 868,\n and by Hincmar\u2019s orders was buried in unconsecrated earth.\n\n \u00a7 91.6. =The Trinitarian Controversy, A.D. 857.=--From his\n prison Gottschalk had accused his metropolitan of a second\n heresy. Hincmar had removed from a church hymn, _Te trina Deitas\n unaque poscimus_, the expression, =trina Deltas=, as favouring\n Arianism, and substituted the words, _sancta Deitas_. His\n opponents therefore charged him with Sabellianism, and Ratramnus\n made this accusation in a controversial tract no longer extant.\n Ratramnus, on the other hand, to whom Hincmar applied, supported\n the change, but would not commit himself to a written approval\n of it, whereupon Hincmar himself undertook a defence of the\n expression substituted in his treatise, _De una et non trini\n Deitate_.[262]\n\n\n \u00a7 92. ENDEAVOURS AFTER REFORMATION.\n\n The independence which Charlemagne gave to the German church first\nawakened in it the consciousness of its vocation as a reformer.\nThis consciousness was maintained throughout the Middle Ages,\nthough hampered indeed by much narrowness, one-sidedness, and error.\nCharlemagne himself stood first in the series of reformers with his\nenergetic protest against image worship. Louis the Pious too persevered\nin this same direction, and encouraged Agobard of Lyons and Claudius of\nTurin when they contested similar forms of ecclesiastical superstition.\n\n \u00a7 92.1. =The Carolingian Opposition to Image Worship,\n A.D. 790-825.=--On the occasion of an embassy of the emperor\n Constantinus Copronymus (\u00a7 66, 2) Pepin the Short convened a\n Synod at Gentiliacum in A.D. 767 (\u00a7 91, 2) where the question\n of image worship was dealt with. We have no further information,\n as the acts of this Synod have been lost. Then in A.D. 790\n Hadrian I. sent to Charlemagne the acts of the 7th occasional\n Synod of Nic\u00e6a (\u00a7 66, 3). Charles, as emperor-elect, regarded\n himself as grievously wronged by the assumption of the Greeks,\n who, without consulting the German court, sought to enact\n laws that were wholly antagonistic to the Frankish practice.\n He published under his own name a state paper in 4 bks., the\n so-called _Libri Carolini_, in which the Byzantine proceedings\n were censured in strong terms, the synodal acts refuted one by\n one, every form of image worship denounced as idolatry, while at\n the same time the position of the iconoclasts was repudiated and,\n with reference to Gregory the Great (\u00a7 57, 4), the usefulness\n of images in quickening devotion, instructing the people and\n providing suitable decoration for sacred places was admitted.\n Veneration of saints, relics, and the cross is, on the other\n hand, permitted. Charlemagne sent this writing to the pope,\n who in the most courteous language wrote a refutation, which,\n however, made no impression upon Charlemagne. On the contrary he\n now hastened preparations for calling a great \u0153cumenical Synod of\n all German churches that would outdo the Synod of the Byzantine\n court. Alcuin utilized his visit to England for securing a\n representation at this Synod of the Anglo-Saxon church. The\n Synod met at Frankfort in A.D. 794 and confirmed the positions\n of the Caroline books. The pope found it prudent to yield to\n the times and the people. Under Louis the Pious the matter was\n brought forward anew on the occasion of an embassy from the\n iconoclast emperor Michael Balbus. A national Synod at Paris\n in A.D. 825 condemned image worship sharply, in opposition to\n Hadrian I., and affirmed the positions of the Caroline books.\n Pope Eugenius II. kept silent on this subject. In the Frankish\n empire down to the 10th century no recognition was given to the\n 2nd Nicene Council, and official opposition was continued against\n image worship.\n\n \u00a7 92.2. Soon after the Parisian council of A.D. 825, =Agobard\n of Lyons= made his appearance with a powerful polemic: _Contra\n superstitionem eorum, qui picturis et imaginibus sanctorum\n adorationis obsequiem deferendum putant_. He goes much further\n than the Caroline books, for not only does he regard it as\n advisable, on account of the inevitable misuse on the part of\n the people, to banish images entirely, but with image worship\n he also rejects all adoration of saints, relics, and angels. Man\n should put his trust in the omnipotent God alone, and worship\n and reverence only the one Mediator, Christ. He comes forward\n also as a reformer of the liturgy. He finds fault with all\n sensuous additions to Divine service, would banish from it all\n non-Biblical hymns, urges to earnest study of Scripture, contends\n against the folly of the ordeal (_De Divinis Sententiis_), the\n popular superstitions about witchcraft and weather omens (_Contra\n insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis_), and the\n idea that by presents to churches a stop can be put to epidemics\n and pestilences. Also on inspiration he entertained very liberal\n opinions (\u00a7 90, 9). No one thought on account of these views to\n charge him with heresy. =Claudius of Turin= went still further\n than Agobard. By the help of Augustine he was able to grasp more\n profoundly than any of his contemporaries the essential core of\n saving truth, that man without any merit of works is justified\n and saved by the grace of God in Christ alone. Louis the\n Pious appointed him to the bishopric of Turin with the express\n injunction that he should contend against image worship in his\n Italian diocese. He found there image worship along with an\n extravagant devotion to relics, crosses and pilgrimages carried\n on to such a degree that he felt himself constrained reluctantly\n because of the condition of affairs to cast images and crosses\n out of the churches altogether. The popular excitement over this\n proceeding rose to the utmost pitch, and his life was saved and\n his office retained only through dread of the Frankish arms. When\n pope Paschalis intimated to him his displeasure, he said the pope\n is only to be honoured as apostolic, when he does the works of\n an apostle, otherwise Matt. xxiii. 2-4 applies to him. Against\n the views of his early scholar and friend the abbot Theodemir,\n regarding monastic psalmody, he vindicated himself in A.D. 825\n in his controversial tract _Apologeticus_, which is now known\n only from the replies of his opponents. A Scotchman, Dungal,\n teacher at Pavia, entered the lists against him and accused him\n before the emperor, who, however, contented himself with calling\n upon bishop Jonas of Orleans to refute the apologetical treatise.\n This refutation appeared only after the death of Claudius. It\n assumed the position of the Frankish church on the question of\n image worship, as also Dungal had done.\n\n\n\n\n Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.\n\n\n\n\n FOOTNOTES.\n\n\n [1] Dowling, \u201cIntroduction to Study of Eccl. Hist.; its\n Progress and Sources.\u201d Lond., 1838.\n Smedt, \u201cIntrod. generalis ad Hist. Eccl. critice\n tractandam.\u201d Gandavi, 1876.\n\n [2] See Sermon on The Pharisees in Mozley\u2019s \u201cUniv. Sermons.\u201d\n Lond., 1876; also\n Sch\u00fcrer, Div. II., vol. ii., pp. 1-43, \u201cPharisees and\n Sadducees.\u201d\n\n [3] See Lightfoot, _Ep. to the Col._, 5th ed., Lond., 1880,\n Diss. on \u201cEssenes, their Name, Origin, and Relation to\n Christianity.\u201d pp. 349-419; also\n Sch\u00fcrer, Div. II., vol. ii., pp. 188-218, \u201cThe Essenes.\u201d\n\n [4] Nutt, _Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma, and\n Literature_. Lond., 1874.\n\n [5] On Philo, see Sch\u00fcrer, Div. II., vol. iii., pp. 321-381.\n\n [6] J. Bannerman, \u201cThe Church of Christ.\u201d 2 vols.,\n Edin., 1868.\n Jacob, \u201cEcclesiastical Polity of the New Testament.\u201d\n Lond., 1871.\n Hatch, \u201cThe Organization of the Early Chr. Churches.\u201d\n Lond., 1881; 2nd ed., 1883.\n D. D. Bannerman, \u201cThe Doctrine of the Church.\u201d\n Edin., 1887.\n Hodge, \u201cThe Church and its Polity.\u201d Edin., 1879.\n Binnie, \u201cThe Church.\u201d Edin., 1882.\n Pressens\u00e9, \u201cLife and Pract. of Early Church.\u201d Lond., 1879.\n Lightfoot, \u201cComm. on Philip.\u201d \u201cEssay on Christian\n Ministry.\u201d 6th ed., Lond., 1881, pp. 181-269.\n\n [7] Mommsen, \u201cDe collegiis et sodaliciis Rom.\u201d Kiel, 1843.\n Foucart, \u201cLes associat. relig. chez les Grecs.\u201d\n Paris, 1873.\n Hatch, \u201cOrganization of Early Chr. Churches.\u201d pp. 26-39.\n\n [8] Lightfoot, \u201cEpistle to Phil.\u201d 6th ed., Lond., 1881,\n p. 95. Detached notes on the synonyms \u201cbishop\u201d and\n \u201cpresbyter.\u201d \u201cDiss. on Christian Ministry.\u201d\n pp. 187-200.\n\n [9] Blondel, \u201cApologia pro sententia Hieron. de episcop. et\n presbyt.\u201d Amst., 1646.\n\n [10] The \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20.\n\n [11] Of these we probably find fragments in Eph. ii. 14;\n 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Tim. ii. 11-13; and perhaps also in\n 1 Tim. iii. 1, 16; Jas. i. 17; Rev. i. 4; iv. 11; v. 9;\n xi. 15; xv. 3; xxi. 1; xxii. 10.\n\n [12] Acts ii. 4, 6; xx. 7.\n\n [13] John xx. 26; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 10.\n\n [14] Acts ii. 39; xvi. 33; 1 Cor. vii. 14.\n\n [15] Acts viii. 17; vi. 6; xiii. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 14.\n\n [16] On the subject of this section consult:\n Pressens\u00e9, \u201cEarly Years of Christianity.\u201d Vol. 2,\n \u201cApostolic Age.\u201d Lond., 1879, pp. 361-381.\n Lechler, \u201cApostolic and Post Apostolic Times.\u201d 2 vols.,\n Edin., 1886; Vol. i., pp. 37-67, 130-144.\n\n [17] Burton, \u201cHeresies of the Apostolic Age.\u201d Oxford, 1829.\n\n [18] As authorities for this period consult:\n Moshemii, \u201cCommentarii de reb. Christianor. ante\n Constant.\u201d Helmst., 1753.\n Baur, \u201cFirst Three Centuries of the Christian Church.\u201d\n Lond., 1877.\n Milman, \u201cHist. of Chr. to Abol. of Pag. in Rom. Emp.\u201d\n 3 vols., Lond., 1840.\n Pressens\u00e9, \u201cEarly Years of Christianity.\u201d 4 vols.,\n Lond., 1879.\n\n [19] Consult:\n Killen, \u201cThe Ancient Church.\u201d Edin., 1859; \u201cThe Old\n Catholic Church.\u201d Edin., 1871.\n Lechler, \u201cApost. and Post-Apost. Times.\u201d 2 vols.,\n Edin., 1886; Vol. ii., pp. 260-379.\n Robertson, \u201cHist. of Chr. Church.\u201d Vol. i., (A.D. 64-590),\n Lond., 1858.\n\n [20] Although the Post-Apostolic and Old Catholic Ages are\n sharply enough distinguished from one another in point\n of time and of contents along many lines of historical\n development, and are rightly partitioned off from each\n other, so that they might seem to require treatment as\n independent periods; yet, on the one hand, passing over\n from the one to the other is so frequent and is for the\n most part of so liquid and incontrollable a nature, while\n on the other hand, the opposition of and the distinction\n between these two periods and the \u0153cumenical Catholic\n Imperial Church that succeeds are so thorough-going,\n that we prefer to embrace the two under one period and\n to point out the boundary lines between the two wherever\n these are clearly discernible.\n\n [21] Inge, \u201cSociety in Rome under the C\u00e6sars.\u201d Lond., 1887.\n\n [22] Uhlhorn, \u201cConflict of Christianity with Heathenism.\u201d\n Steere, \u201cAccount of the Persecutions of the Church under\n the Roman Emperors.\u201d\n\n [23] Renan, \u201cAntichrist.\u201d Lond., 1874.\n Merivale, \u201cHist. of Rom. Emp.\u201d Vols. v. vi.,\n Lond., 1856, 1858.\n Farrar\u2019s \u201cEarly Days of Christianity.\u201d Lond., 1884;\n Bk. I., pp. 1-44.\n Mommsen, \u201cHist. of Rome.\u201d 6 vols., Lond., 1875 ff.\n\n [24] Renan, \u201cMarcus Aurelius.\u201d Lond., 1883.\n Lightfoot, \u201cIgnatius and Polycarp.\u201d 3 vols., Lond., 1885.\n\n [25] Lightfoot, \u201cIgnatius.\u201d Vol. i., pp. 469-476.\n\n [26] \u201cKirchengesch. v. Dtschl.\u201d I. 94.\n\n [27] Mason, \u201cThe Persecution of Diocletian.\u201d Cambridge, 1876.\n\n [28] Cotterill, \u201cPeregrinus Proteus.\u201d Edin., 1879; Engl.\n Transl. of Lucian\u2019s works, by Dr. Francklin, 4 vols.,\n Lond., 1781.\n\n [29] Baur, \u201cChristian Church in First Three Centuries.\u201d\n Lond., 1877.\n \u201cCelsus and Origen.\u201d in vol. iv. of Froude\u2019s \u201cShort\n Studies.\u201d\n\n [30] Philostratus, \u201cLife of Apollonius of Tyana.\u201d First 2 bks.,\n Transl. by Blount, Lond., 1680.\n Newman, \u201cHist. Sketches.\u201d Vol. i., chap. ii., \u201cApollonius\n of Tyana.\u201d\n\n [31] The works of Plotinus consist of 54 treatises arranged\n in 6 Enneads, \u201cOpera Omnia.\u201d ed. Creuzer, 3 vols.,\n Oxon., 1835. Several of the treatises transl. into\n English by H. Taylor, Lond., 1794 and 1817.\n\n [32] Zeller, \u201cHistory of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy.\u201d\n Lond., 1831.\n Ueberweg, \u201cHist. of Phil.\u201d Lond., 1872; Vol. i.,\n pp. 240-252.\n\n [33] \u201cNarratio orig. rituum et error. Christianor. S. Joannis.\u201d\n Rom., 1652.\n\n [34] Ewald, \u201cHist. of Israel.\u201d Lond., 1886; Vol. viii., p. 120.\n\n [35] In de Sacy\u2019s \u201cChrestom. Arabe.\u201d 2 ed., I. 333.\n\n [36] 1 Cor. xvi. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 19; Gal. ii. 9.\n\n [37] Burton, \u201cHeresies of the Apostolic Age.\u201d Oxford, 1829.\n Zeller, \u201cActs of the Apostles.\u201d 2 vols., London,\n 1875, 1876.\n Pressens\u00e9, \u201cApostolic Age.\u201d London, 1879, pp. 66-73;\n 318-330.\n\n [38] Neander\u2019s \u201cFirst Planting of Christianity and\n Antignostikus.\u201d (Bohn), 2 vols., Lond., 1851.\n Mansel, \u201cGnostic Heresies of First and Second Centuries.\u201d\n Ed. by Bishop Lightfoot, Lond., 1875.\n King, \u201cRemains of the Gnostics.\u201d Lond., 1864;\n new ed., 1887.\n Ueberweg, \u201cHist. of Phil.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1872, Vol. i.,\n pp. 280-290.\n\n [39] These are published among the works of Origen. Recently\n Caspari discovered an admirable Latin translation of them\n made by Rufinus, and published it in his \u201cKirchenhist.\n Anecdota.\u201d I., (Christ., 1883).\n\n [40] Lipsius, \u201cValentinus and his School.\u201d in Smith\u2019s \u201cDict.\n of Biography.\u201d Vol. iv., Lond., 1887.\n\n [41] In Cureton\u2019s \u201cSpicil. Syr.\u201d Lond., 1855.\n\n [42] In its extant Coptic form, ed. by Petermann, Brl., 1851.\n In a Latin transl. by Schwartze, Brl., 1853.\n In English transl. in King\u2019s \u201cRemains of the Gnostics.\u201d\n Lond., 1887.\n\n [43] Yet the school of Baur regard this Gospel of Marcion as\n the original of Luke. Hilgenfeld thinks that both our\n Luke and Marcion drew from one earlier source. Hahn\n has sought to restore the Marcionite Gospel in Thilo\u2019s\n \u201cCod. Apoc. N.T.\u201d I. 401.\n Sanday, \u201cGospels in the Second Century.\u201d London, 1876.\n\n [44] Salmon, \u201cIntrod. to the N.T.\u201d London, 1885, pp. 242-248.\n Reuss, \u201cHist. of N.T.\u201d Edin., 1884, \u00a7\u00a7 291, 246, 362, 508.\n\n [45] Lightfoot, \u201cComm. on Galatians.\u201d Camb., 1865; Diss.\n \u201cSt. Paul and the Three.\u201d\n\n [46] Lechler, \u201cApost. and Post-Apostol. Times.\u201d Vol. ii.,\n p. 263 ff.\n Ewald, \u201cHist. of Israel.\u201d Lond., 1886, Vol. viii.,\n p. 152.\n\n [47] Ewald, \u201cHist. of Israel.\u201d Vol. viii., p. 122.\n\n [48] We possess this work in the original Greek. The first\n complete edition was that of Cotelerius in his \u201cPp.\n Apost.\u201d The latest and most careful separate ed., is by\n Lagarde, Lps., 1865; Eng. transl. in Ante Nicene Lib.,\n Edin., 1871.\n\n [49] Existing only in the Latin transl. of Rufinus. Published\n in Cotelerius, \u201cPp. Apost.\u201d\n Separate ed. by Gersdorf, Lps., 1838; Eng. transl.\n Ante-Nicene Lib., Edin., 1867.\n\n [50] See de Sacy, \u201cMem. sur diverses antiqu. de la Perse.\u201d\n Par., 1794.\n The most important of these Arabic works are the Literary\n History of An-Naddim, Kitab al Fihrist, ed. Fl\u00fcgel and\n Roediger, Lps., 1871; then\n Al-Shurstani\u2019s \u201cHist. of relig. and phil. sects.\u201d ed.\n Cureton, Lond., 1842; and\n Al-Biruni\u2019s \u201cChron. d. Orient V\u00f6lker.\u201d ed. Sachau,\n Lps., 1878.\n\n [51] Among the Mandeans _mana rabba_ means one of the highest\n \u00e6ons, and is thus perhaps identical with the name\n Paraclete borrowed from the Christian terminology,\n which Manes assumed.\n\n [52] Ueberweg, \u201cHist. of Phil.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1872, Vol. i.,\n pp. 290-325. Patristic. Phil. down to Council of Nic\u00e6a.\n\n [53] Donaldson, \u201cApostolic Fathers.\u201d Lond., 1874.\n Lightfoot, \u201cClement of Rome.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1869, 1877;\n Ignatius and Polycarp, 3 vols., Lond., 1885.\n Sanday, \u201cThe Gospels in the Second Century.\u201d Lond., 1876.\n\n [54] Luke i. 1; \u00a7 32, 4; 36, 7; 59, 1.\n\n [55] \u201cPatrum Apost. Opera.\u201d Ed. Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn,\n 3 vols., Lps., 1876 ff.\n \u201cApostolic Fathers.\u201d Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Library,\n Edin., 1867.\n Donaldson, \u201cApostolic Fathers.\u201d Edin., 1874.\n\n [56] At Constantinople, 1875.\n\n [57] Comp. Lightfoot, \u201cSt. Clement of Rome, An Appendix.\u201d etc.,\n Lond., 1877.\n\n [58] Donaldson, \u201cHistory of Christian Literature.\u201d Vol. i.,\n Lond., 1864.\n Cunningham, \u201cDissertation on Epistle of St. Barnabas.\u201d\n Lond., 1877.\n\n [59] \u201cHerm\u00e6 Pastor.\u201d ed. Hilgenfeld, 2 ed., Lps., 1881. Down\n to the middle of the 19th century it was known only in\n a Latin translation, but since then the Greek original\n has been accessible in two recensions, as well as\n in an ancient Ethiopic translation (ed. d\u2019Abbadie,\n Lps., 1860). One of the Greek recensions almost complete\n was found in the monastery of Athos; and an older, but\n less perfect one, was found in the _Codex Sinaiticus_.\n Schodde, \u201cHerm\u00e2 Nab\u00ee; The Ethiopic version of Pastor\n Herm\u00e6 examined.\u201d Lps., 1876.\n\n [60] Comp.\n Harnack in _Expositor_ for March, 1886, pp. 185-192.\n Lightfoot, \u201cIgnatius and Polycarp.\u201d Lond., 1885, vol. ii.,\n pp. 433-470.\n\n [61] Cureton, \u201cCorpus Ignatianum.\u201d (Rom., Eph., and Ep. to\n Polyc.), Lond., 1819.\n\n [62] Against their genuineness:\n Dall\u00e6us, \u201cDe scrr. qu\u00e6 sub Dionysii et Ignatii nom.\n circumfer.\u201d Gen., 1666.\n Killen, \u201cIgnatian Epistles entirely Spurious.\u201d\n Edin., 1886.\n\n In favour:\n Pearson, \u201cVindici\u00e6 St. Ignat.\u201d Cantab., 1672.\n Lightfoot, \u201cIgnatius and Polycarp.\u201d 3 vols., Lond., 1885.\n\n [63] Salmon, \u201cIntrod. to the New Testament.\u201d Lond., 1885,\n pp. 104-126.\n Sanday, \u201cGospels in Second Century.\u201d Lond., 1876.\n\n [64] Schaff, \u201cThe Oldest Church Manual.\u201d Edin., 1886.\n Hitchcock and Brown, \u201cTeaching of the Twelve Apostles.\u201d\n New York, 1884.\n Taylor, \u201cThe Teaching of the Twelve Apostles with Illus.\n from the Talmud.\u201d Cambr., 1886.\n _Expositor_, April and June, 1886, pp. 319 f. and\n 401 ff.; Nov., 1887, pp. 359-371.\n\n [65] Donaldson, \u201cHist. of Chr. Lit. from death of App. to Nic.\n Council.\u201d 3 vols., Lond., 1864, Vols. ii. and iii.,\n \u201cThe Apologists.\u201d\n\n [66] The Syriac translation of a treatise of Melito\u2019s given\n in Cureton\u2019s \u201cSpicileg. Syr.\u201d Lond., 1853, which gives\n itself out as an address delivered before Antoninus\n C\u00e6sar, is not identical with his Apology to Antoninus\n Pius, of which Eusebius has preserved three fragments,\n as these passages are not found in it.\n\n [67] The fragments of Melito\u2019s works are collected by Routh,\n \u201cReliqui\u00e6 Sacr.\u201d L., Oxon., 1814.\n\n [68] \u201cOpera.\u201d ed. Otto, 3 vols., Jena, 1876; Engl. transl. in\n Ante-Nicene Library, Edin., 1867.\n Semisch, \u201cJust. Mart.\u201d 2 vols., Edin., 1843.\n Kaye, \u201cWritings and Opin. of Just. Mart.\u201d Lond., 1853.\n\n [69] Salmon, \u201cIntrod. to New Test.\u201d On Tatian, pp. 96-104.\n Wace on \u201cZahn\u2019s Tatian\u2019s Diatessaron.\u201d in _Expositor_\n for Sept. and Oct., 1882.\n\n [70] Bigg, \u201cThe Christian Platonists of Alexandria.\u201d Bampton\n Lect. for 1886, Oxf., 1886.\n Kingsley, \u201cAlexandria and her Schools.\u201d Camb., 1854.\n\n [71] \u201cOpera.\u201d ed. Harvey, Cantab., 1857; Introd. II.\n \u201cLife and Wr. of Iren\u00e6us.\u201d Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene\n Lib., 2 vols., Edin., 1868, 1869.\n Lightfoot, \u201cChurches of Gaul.\u201d in _Contemp. Review_,\n Aug. 1876.\n Lipsius, \u201cIren\u00e6us.\u201d in Smith\u2019s \u201cDict. of Chr. Biog.\u201d\n III., pp. 253-279.\n\n [72] Many works ascribed to him have been lost; whatever fragments\n of these exist have been collected by Fabricius and Lagarde.\n These were:\n _Exeget._, a Com. on Daniel;\n _Apolog._, \u03a0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2;\n _Polem._,\n against Gnostics and Monarchians,\n against the Asiatic Observance of Easter (\u00a7 37, 2);\n _Dogmat._,\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5,\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 (\u00a7 22, 4),\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd;\n Hist.-chron.,\n Chronicle, and Easter-Canon.\n On Philosophoumena:\n D\u00f6llinger, \u201cHippolytus and Callistus.\u201d Edin., 1876.\n\n [73] \u201cOpera.\u201d ed. Dindorf, 4 vols., Oxon., 1868.\n \u201cSupplementum Clementinum, in Zahn\u2019s Forsch.\u201d Vol. iii.,\n Engl. transl. in Ante-Nicene Lib., 2 vols., Edin., 1867.\n Bigg, \u201cChr. Plat. of Alex.\u201d Lectt. II. III., Oxf., 1886.\n Kaye, \u201cClement of Alexandria.\u201d London, 1855.\n Reuss, \u201cHist of Canon.\u201d Edin., 1884, pp. 112-116.\n\n [74] Jerome reckons them at 2,000; Epiphanius at 6,000; these\n must include the thousands of separate epistles and\n homilies.\n Bigg, \u201cChr. Platonists of Alex.\u201d Lectt. IV.-VI.,\n Oxf., 1886.\n\n [75] _Hexaplorum qu\u00e6 supersunt._ Ed. Field, Oxon., 1871.\n\n [76] Ed. Selwyn, Cantab., 1876; Engl. transl. of C. Celsum\n and De Principiis, in Ante-Nicene Library, 2 vols.,\n Edin., 1869-1872.\n\n [77] \u201cGregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius of Alex. and Archelaus.\u201d\n transl. by Prof. Salmond, Edin., 1871.\n\n [78] Neander, \u201cAntignosticus, or the Spirit of Tertull.\u201d\n appended to \u201cHist. of Planting of Chr. Church.\u201d\n 2 vols., Lond., 1851.\n Kaye, \u201cEccles. Hist. of 2nd and 3rd Cents. illustr. from\n Wr. of Tertull.\u201d 2 ed., Camb., 1829.\n Tertullian, \u201cWorks.\u201d 3 vols., Ante-Nicene Lib.,\n Edin., 1869.\n\n [79] \u201cCyprian\u2019s Treatises and Epistles.\u201d Lib. of Fathers,\n 2 vols., Oxf., 1839, 1844.\n \u201cWritings of Cyprian.\u201d Ante-Nicene Lib., 2 vols.,\n Edin., 1868.\n Poole, \u201cLife and Times of C.\u201d Oxf., 1840.\n Pressens\u00e9, \u201cMartyrs and Apologists.\u201d Lond., 1879,\n pp. 414-438.\n\n [80] Dillmann, \u201cPseudepigraph. des A. Ts.\u201d Herzog, xii. 341.\n Reuss, \u201cHist. of the N. T.\u201d Edin., 1884.\n Salmon, \u201cIntrod. to N. T.\u201d 2nd ed., Lond., 1886.\n\n [81] \u201cFabricius, Codex pseudepigr. V.T.\u201d Ed. 2., Hamb., 1722.\n\n [82] Drummond, \u201cJewish Messiah.\u201d Lond., 1877.\n Lawrence, \u201cBook of Enoch.\u201d Oxf., 1821.\n Schodde, \u201cBk. of Enoch.\u201d Andover, 1882.\n Schurer, \u201cHist. of Jew. Peo. in Times of J. Chr.\u201d\n Div. II., Vol. 3., pp. 59 ff., 73 ff., 93 ff., 134 ff.;\n (Enoch, Assumptio, Ezra, Bk. of Jub.).\n Bensly, \u201cMissing Fragment of Lat. Transl. of 4th Bk. of\n Ezra.\u201d Cambr., 1875.\n\n [83] Sinker, \u201cTest. XII. Patriarchum.\u201d Cambr., 1869;\n Appendix, 1879.\n Malan, \u201cBook of Adam and Eve.\u201d Lond., 1882.\n Hort on Bks. of Adam, in Smith\u2019s \u201cDict. of Chr. Biog.\u201d\n Lond., 1877.\n\n [84] Salmon, \u201cIntrod. to N.T.\u201d Lond., 1885; Lect. XII.,\n \u201cApoc. and Her. Gospels.\u201d pp. 226-248.\n\n [85] Nicholson, \u201cThe Gosp. acc. to the Hebrews.\u201d Lond., 1879.\n\n [86] Giles, \u201cCod. Apoc. N. T.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1852.\n Tischendorf, \u201cEvv. Apocr.\u201d Ed. 2, Lps., 1876.\n\n [87] Wright, \u201cApocryphal Acts of the Apostles.\u201d Syriac and\n English, 2 vols., Lond., 1871.\n Malan, \u201cThe Conflicts of the Holy Apostles.\u201d Lond., 1871.\n Tischendorf, \u201cActa app. Apocr.\u201d Lps., 1851.\n\n [88] Phillips, \u201cAddai the Apostle.\u201d Syriac and English,\n Lond., 1876.\n\n [89] Lightfoot, \u201cComm. on Phil.\u201d 6th ed., Lond., 1881; \u201cDiss.\n on Paul and Seneca.\u201d pp. 270-328; \u201cLetters of Paul\n and Seneca.\u201d pp. 329-333.\n Lightfoot, \u201cComm. on Col.\u201d 5 ed., Lond., 1880;\n pp. 274-300, \u201cThe Epistle from Laodicea.\u201d\n\n [90] Dorner, \u201cHist. of Dev. of Doctr. of Person of Chr.\u201d\n 5 vols., Edin., 1862.\n Pressens\u00e9, \u201cHeresy and Christian Doctrine.\u201d Lond., 1879.\n\n [91] Deut. xviii. 15; Isa. liii. 3; Matt. xii. 32; Luke i. 35;\n John viii. 40; Acts ii. 22; 1 Tim. ii. 5.\n\n [92] Tertullian says: _Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Rom\u00e6\n procuravit, prophetiam expulit et h\u00e6resim intulit,\n paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit._--Ps.-Tertull.:\n _H\u00e6resim introduxit, quam Victorinus corroborare\n curavit._\n\n [93] Dorner, \u201cPerson of Christ.\u201d Vol. ii.\n\n [94] Pressens\u00e9, \u201cLife and Practice in the Early Church.\u201d\n Lond., 1872.\n\n [95] Hatch, \u201cThe Organization of the Early Christian\n Churches.\u201d Lond., 1881; \u201cThe Growth of Church\n Institutions.\u201d Lond., 1887.\n Bannerman, \u201cDoctr. of the Church.\u201d 2 vols., Edin., 1858;\n espec. vol. i., pp. 277-480.\n Lightfoot, \u201cComm. on Phil.\u201d 6th ed., Lond., 1881:\n \u201cDissertat. on Chr. Ministry.\u201d\n Papers in _Expositor_, 1887, on \u201cOrigin of Chr. Ministry.\u201d\n by Sanday, Harnack and others.\n\n [96] We are not carried further than this by Iren\u00e6us, iii. 3.\n Similarly, too, Cyprian, _De Unitate Ecclesi\u00e6_, iv.\n Tertullian also does not accept the Roman tradition\n as of supreme authority, but prefers that of Asia\n Minor in regard to the Easter Controversy, and, in the\n _De Pudicitia_, he opposes with bitter invective the\n penitential discipline of the Roman bishop Zephyrinus or\n Callistus. So, too, Cyprian repudiates the Roman practice\n in regard to heretics\u2019 baptism (\u00a7 35, 5); and on the same\n subject Firmilian of C\u00e6sarea in Cappadocia hesitates not\n to write: _Non pudet Stephanum, Cyprianum pseudo-christum\n et pseudo-apostolum et dolosum operarium dicere:\n qui omnia in se esse conscius pr\u00e6venit, ut alteri\n per mendacium objiceret, qu\u00e6 ipse ex merito audire\n deberet._--Consult:\n Blondel, \u201cTrait\u00e9 hist. de la primaut\u00e9.\u201d Gen., 1641.\n Salacious, \u201cDe Primatu Pap\u00e6.\u201d Lugd. Bat., 1645.\n Kenrick, \u201cThe Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated.\u201d\n New York, 1848.\n \u201cThe Pope and the Council.\u201d by Janus, Lond., 1869.\n\n [97] Wall, \u201cHist. of Infant Baptism.\u201d with Gale\u2019s Reflections,\n and Wall\u2019s Defence, 4 vols., Oxf., 1836.\n Wilberforce, \u201cDoctr. of Holy Baptism.\u201d Lond., 1849.\n\n [98] Funk\u2019s assertion that the \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 and the \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n were not stages in the Catechumenate, but penal ranks\n in which offending Catechumens were placed, and that\n there was only one order of Catechumens is untenable\n for these reasons:\n\n 1. Because the penitential institution presupposes a\n falling away from the grace of baptism;\n\n 2. Because the Canon of Neo-C\u00e6sarea with its\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c7\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03c9,\n necessarily implies that \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is a stage in\n the Catechumenate;\n\n 3. Because this Canon provides that after the first\n penal procedure, not after passing through two\n penitential orders, the sinner will be expelled;\n\n 4. Finally, because the \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd of the Catechumens,\n just like that of the congregation in prayer, is\n even in expression something quite different from\n the \u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of the penitents.--Consult:\n\n Pressens\u00e9, \u201cLife and Practice in the Early Church.\u201d\n Lond., 1879, pp. 5-36, 333.\n\n [99] Pressens\u00e9, \u201cLife and Practice in the Early Church.\u201d\n pp. 201-216, 263-286.\n Lechler, \u201cApostolic and Post-Apost. Times.\u201d 2 vols.,\n Edin., 1886; Vol. ii. 298.\n Jacob, \u201cEcclest. Polity of N. T.\u201d Lond., 1871,\n pp. 187-319.\n\n [100] Jacob, \u201cEcclest. Polit. of N.T.\u201d Lond., 1871, Lect. vii.,\n \u201cThe Lord\u2019s Supper.\u201d\n Waterland, \u201cReview of the Doctrine of the Eucharist.\u201d\n Lond., 1737.\n\n [101] See, _De Doctr. Christiana._ II. ii. 15.--\u201cOld Latin\n Biblical Texts.\u201d Edited by John Wordsworth, Bp. of\n Salisbury, Oxford, 1885, etc.\n\n [102] Lechler, \u201cApostolic and Post-Apostolic Times.\u201d\n Edin., 1886, Vol. ii., pp. 301-310.\n\n [103] Bosio, \u201cRoma Sotteranea.\u201d Rom., 1632.\n De Rossi, \u201cRoma sott. crist.\u201d 3 vols., Rome, 1864-1877.\n Northcote and Brownlow, \u201cRoma Sotteranea.\u201d Lond., 1869.\n Withrow, \u201cThe Catacombs of Rome.\u201d Lond., 1876.\n\n [104] Marriott, \u201cTestimony of the Catacombs.\u201d Lond., 1877.\n\n [105] Z\u00f6ckler, \u201cThe Cross of Christ.\u201d Lond., 1877.\n Allen, \u201cEarly Christian Symbolism.\u201d Lond., 1887.\n Didson, \u201cChr. Iconography.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1886.\n\n [106] Schmidt, \u201cThe Social Results of Early Christianity.\u201d\n Lond., 1886.\n Brace, \u201cGesta Christi.\u201d Lond., 1883.\n Uhlhorn, \u201cChr. Charity in the Ancient Church.\u201d\n Edin., 1883.\n Pressens\u00e9, \u201cLife and Practice in Early Church.\u201d\n Lond., 1879, pp. 345-477.\n Ryan, \u201cHist. of the Effects of Relig. upon Mankind.\u201d\n Dublin, 1820.\n\n [107] Morinus, \u201cDe discipl. in administr. s. p\u0153nitenti\u00e6.\u201d\n Par., 1651.\n Marshall, \u201cPenitential Discipline of the Prim. Church for\n the First Four Centuries.\u201d Lond., 1844 (1st ed., 1718).\n Tertullian, \u201cDe P\u0153nitentia.\u201d See Transl. in Library of\n Fathers, Tertullian, vol. i., \u201cApologetic and Practical\n Treatises.\u201d Oxf., 1843; XI. Of Repentance, with long\n and valuable notes by Dr. Pusey, pp. 349-408.\n\n [108] J. de Soyres, \u201cMontanism and the Primitive Church.\u201d\n Cambr., 1878.\n Cunningham, \u201cThe Churches of Asia.\u201d Lond., 1880,\n p. 159 ff.\n\n [109] Bunsen, \u201cHippolytus and his Age.\u201d Lond., 1854.\n Wordsworth, \u201cSt. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.\u201d\n Lond., 1852.\n D\u00f6llinger, \u201cHippolytus and Callistus.\u201d Edin., 1876\n (orig. publ. 1853).\n\n [110] \u201cLibrary of Fathers.\u201d Oxf., 1843, Cyprian\u2019s Treatises:\n v.\u201cOn Unity of the Church.\u201d vi. \u201cOn the Lapsed.\u201d with\n prefaces.\n Also, \u201cEpp. of S. Cyprian.\u201d (1844) xli.-xlv., lii.\n and lix.\n\n [111] \u201cLibrary of Fathers.\u201d Oxf., 1844; \u201cEpp. of S. Cyprian.\u201d\n Ep. lii., also Ep. lv.\n\n [112] Merivale, \u201cConversion of the Roman Empire.\u201d Lond., 1864.\n Milman, \u201cHist. of Christianity to Abol. of Pag. in Rom.\n Emp.\u201d 3 vols., Lond.\n Lecky, \u201cHist. of Eur. Morals.\u201d Vol. ii., \u201cFrom Constantine\n to Charlemagne.\u201d\n\n [113] D\u00f6llinger, \u201cFables respecting the Popes of the Middle\n Ages.\u201d Lond., 1871.\n\n [114] Original source is Eusebius, \u201cLife of Constantine.\u201d\n Trans. Lond., 1842.\n See interesting lect. on Constantine in Stanley\u2019s \u201cHist.\n of Eastern Church.\u201d Lond., 1861.\n Madden, \u201cChristian Emblems on Coins of Constantine I.\u201d\n Lond., 1878.\n\n [115] Neander, \u201cThe Emperor Julian and his Generation.\u201d\n Lond., 1850.\n G. H. Rendall, \u201cThe Emperor Julian.\u201d Lond., 1879.\n Newman, \u201cMiracles in Eccl. Hist.\u201d Oxf., 1842.\n Bp. Wordsworth, \u201cJulian.\u201d in Smith\u2019s Dict. of Biog.,\n vol. iii., pp. 484-523.\n\n [116] On this whole period consult: Histories of Theodoret,\n Sozomen, Socrates, and Evagrius (containing much\n fabulous matter, but useful as contemporary records\n extending down to A.D. 594). Transl. in 4 vols.,\n Lond., 1812-1846.\n For Theodosius I. see Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d\n vol. ii., p. 341 ff., Edin., 1876.\n\n [117] A careful reconstruction of the whole as far as\n possible has been attempted by Neumann (Leipz., 1880),\n accompanied by prolegomena and a German translation.\n\n [118] Hefele, \u201cHist. of Church Councils.\u201d Edin., 1872, Vol. i.,\n pp. 1-48.\n Pusey, \u201cCouncils of Ch. from A.D. 51 to A.D. 381: their\n constit., obj., and history.\u201d Oxf., 1857.\n\n [119] Its original form is probably preserved in a Syriac\n translation; see Bunsen\u2019s \u201cAnalecta Antenic\u00e6na.\u201d\n ii. 45-338, Lond., 1854.\n\n [120] First published in the Greek original by Bickell under\n the title, inapplicable to the first part: \u0391\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u039a\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n [121] Maitland, \u201cThe Dark Ages.\u201d Lond., 1844.\n Ozanam, \u201cHist. of Civilization in 5th Cent.\u201d Transl.\n by Glyn, 2 vols.\n Montalembert, \u201cMonks of the West, from Benedict to\n Bernard.\u201d 7 vols., Edin., 1861 ff.\n\n [122] Stephens, \u201cChrysostom: his Life and Times.\u201d 3rd ed.,\n London, 1883, pp. 59 ff., 294 ff.\n\n [123] Hatch, \u201cOrganization of the Early Christian Churches.\u201d\n London, 1881, pp. 124-139.\n Hatch, \u201cOrdination.\u201d in Smith\u2019s \u201cDict. of Bibl. Antiq.\u201d\n Vol. ii.\n\n [124] Hatch, \u201cOrganization of Chr. Ch.\u201d p. 161.\n Bede, \u201cEccles. Hist.\u201d iv. 1.\n\n [125] Dale, \u201cSynod of Elvira, and Christ. Life in the 4th cent.\u201d\n London, 1882.\n Lea, \u201cHist. of Sacerdotal Celibacy.\u201d Philad., 1867.\n Lecky, \u201cHist. of Europ. Morals.\u201d London, 1877, Vol. ii.,\n pp. 328 ff.\n Hefele, \u201cHist. of Christ. Councils.\u201d Edin., 1872, Vol. i.,\n pp. 150, 380, 435.\n\n [126] Neale, \u201cHist. of the Holy Eastern Church.\u201d 5 vols.,\n London, 1847-1873.\n Stanley, \u201cLect. on the Eastern Church.\u201d London, 1861.\n\n [127] Greenwood, \u201cCathedra Petri: Pol. Hist. of Great Latin\n Patriarchate from 1st to 16th cent.\u201d 6 vols., London,\n 1856 ff.\n\n [128] Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d Vol. ii., Edin., 1876,\n pp. 231 ff., 483 ff.\n\n [129] Comp. D\u00f6llinger, \u201cFables Respecting the Popes of the\n Middle Ages.\u201d Lond., 1871.\n\n [130] Milman, \u201cLatin Christianity.\u201d Vol. i.\n\n [131] Bright, \u201cHist. of Church from A.D. 313-451.\u201d 2 ed.,\n Cambr., 1869.\n Milman, \u201cLatin Christianity.\u201d Vol. i.\n\n [132] Kellett, \u201cPope Gregory the Great and his Relations with\n Gaul.\u201d (Cambridge Essays, No. ii.), Cambridge, 1889.\n\n [133] Engl. Transl.:\n \u201cEccles. Hist. with Life of Euseb. by Valesius.\u201d\n Lond., 1843.\n \u201cTheophania, or Div. Manifest. of the Lord.\u201d from Syr.\n by Dr. Sam. Lee, Lond., 1843.\n \u201cLife of Constantine.\u201d Lond., 1844.\n \u201cLife of Eusebius.\u201d by Bright, prefixed to Oxf. ed.\n of Eccl. Hist. of 1872.\n\n [134] \u201cFestal Epp. of Athanasius.\u201d (transl. from Syriac\n discovered in 1842 by Tattam, and first edited by\n Cureton in 1848), Oxf., 1854.\n\n [135] \u201cTreatises against Arians.\u201d 2 vols., Oxf., 1842 (new ed.,\n 1 vol., 1877).\n \u201cHistorical Tracts.\u201d Oxf., 1843; \u201cSelect Tracts,\u201d with\n Newman\u2019s Notes, 2 vols., Lond., 1881.\n\n [136] Newman\u2019s, \u201cHist. Sketches.\u201d Vol. ii., chap. v; Sketches\n of Basil, Gregory, etc. Originally publ. under title\n \u201cChurch of the Fathers.\u201d Lond., 1842.\n\n [137] Ullmann, \u201cGregory Nazianzen.\u201d Oxford, 1855; and Newman\n \u201cChurch of the Fathers.\u201d\n\n [138] Cyril\u2019s Comm. on Luke is transl. from the Syriac by\n Dr. Payne Smith, Oxf., 1859.\n\n [139] A very full and admirable account of Synesius and his\n writings is given by Rev. T. R. Halcomb in Smith\u2019s\n \u201cDict. of Chr. Biog.\u201d Vol. iii., pp. 756-780.\n\n [140] Neander, \u201cLife of Chrysostom.\u201d Lond., 1845.\n Stephens, \u201cLife of Chrysostom.\u201d 3rd ed., Lond., 1883.\n Chase, \u201cChrysostom: a Study.\u201d Cambr., 1887.\n His Homilies and Addresses are transl. in 15 vols. in\n the \u201cLib. of the Fathers.\u201d Oxf., 1839-1851.\n Various Eng. translations of the tract \u201cOn the\n Priesthood.\u201d\n\n [141] Newman\u2019s \u201cHistorical Sketches.\u201d Vol. ii., chap. i.,\n \u201cTheodoret.\u201d\n\n [142] Translated by Dean Church in \u201cLib. of the Fathers.\u201d\n Oxf., 1838; with interesting and instructive Preface\n by Newman.\n\n [143] Ueberweg, \u201cHist. of Philosophy.\u201d Lond., 1872, Vol. i.,\n pp. 349-352.\n Colet, \u201cOn the Hierarchies of Dionysius.\u201d ed. by\n Lupton, Lond., 1869.\n Wescott, \u201cDionysius the Areopagite.\u201d in _Contemp.\n Review_ for May, 1867.\n\n [144] Etheridge, \u201cThe Syrian Churches: their Early Hist.,\n Liturg. and Lit.\u201d Lond., 1846.\n\n [145] Morris, \u201cSelect Writings of Ephraim the Syrian.\u201d\n Oxford, 1817.\n Burgess, \u201cRepentance of Nineveh, Metrical Homily by\n Ephraem.\u201d Lond., 1853.\n \u201cSelect Metrical Hymns and Homilies of Eph. Syr.\u201d\n Lond., 1853.\n\n [146] Newman, \u201cChurch of the Fathers.\u201d 2nd ed., London, 1842.\n Reprinted in Hist. Sketches, vol. ii.\n Gilly, \u201cVigilantius and his Times.\u201d London, 1844.\n\n [147] \u201cLib. of Fathers.\u201d in vol. of Cyprian\u2019s Epps., Oxf., 1844,\n pp. 318-384. For phrase quoted, see p. 322.\n\n [148] A good account of the writings of Jerome is given by the\n late Prof. William Ramsay in Smith\u2019s \u201cDict. of Grk. and\n Rom. Biogr.\u201d Vol. ii., p. 460.\n Milman, \u201cHist. of Chr.\u201d Vol. iii., ch. xi.\n Cutts, \u201cSt. Jerome.\u201d Lond., 1877.\n Gilly, \u201cVigilantius and his Times.\u201d Lond., 1844.\n\n [149] Gilly, \u201cVigilantius and his Times.\u201d London, 1844.\n\n [150] Newman\u2019s \u201cArians of the 4th Century.\u201d London, 1838.\n Gwatkin, \u201cStudies of Arianism.\u201d Camb., 1882.\n Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d Vols. i. ii., Edin.,\n 1872, 1876.\n Newman\u2019s \u201cTracts Theolog. and Eccles.\u201d Chap. ii.; Doctrinal\n Causes of Arianism.\n \u201cSelect Treatises of Athanasius.\u201d Ed. by Newman, 2 vols.,\n London, 1881, Vol. 2 containing notes on Arius,\n Athanasius, etc.\n\n [151] Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d I., pp. 231-447.\n Kaye, \u201cHist. of Council of Nic\u00e6a.\u201d London, 1853.\n Tillemont, \u201cHist. of Arians and Council of Nice.\u201d\n London, 1721.\n\n [152] Newman\u2019s \u201cSelect Treat. of Athanasius.\u201d Vol. ii., p. 196 f.\n Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d Vol. ii., Edin., 1876, p. 193.\n\n [153] Newman\u2019s \u201cSelect Treat. of Athanasius.\u201d Vol. ii., p. 282 ff.\n Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d ii., p. 217.\n\n [154] Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d ii., pp. 340-373.\n Hort, \u201cTwo Dissertations.\u201d ii., On the Constantinople Creed\n and other Eastern Creeds of the 4th cent., Camb., 1874.\n\n [155] Swete, \u201cThe Hist. of the Doctr. of the Procession of the\n Holy Spirit from Apost. Age to Death of Charlemagne.\u201d\n Cambr., 1876.\n Pusey, \u201cOn the clause \u2018And the Son.\u2019\u201d Oxf., 1876.\n\n [156] Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d ii., p. 348 ff., \u00a7 97, The\n Tome and the Creed.\n\n [157] Stephens, \u201cChrysostom.\u201d pp. 287-305.\n Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d ii., p. 430 ff.\n\n [158] The most useful and complete account of Chrysostom is\n that of Stephens. Consult also Milman, \u201cHist. of Chr.\u201d\n Vol. iii., pp. 206 ff.\n\n [159] Dorner, \u201cHist. of the Development of the Doctr. of the\n Person of Christ.\u201d 5 vols., Edin., 1861.\n\n [160] Newman, \u201cTracts Theological and Ecclesiastical.\u201d\n Chap. iii., Apollinarianism.\n\n [161] Hefele, \u201cHist. of Councils.\u201d Vol. iii., pp. 1-156.\n\n [162] Most informing about all these transactions is Hefele, \u201cHist.\n of Councils.\u201d iii., Edin., 1883; (Robber Synod, p. 241 ff.;\n Chalcedon, p. 451 ff.).\n Perry, \u201cSecond Council of Ephesus.\u201d London, 1877.\n Bright, \u201cHist. of Church from A.D. 313-451.\u201d Cambr., 1869.\n\n [163] Butler, \u201cAncient Coptic Churches.\u201d 2 vols., London, 1884.\n\n [164] D\u00f6llinger, \u201cFables respecting the Popes of the Middle\n Ages.\u201d Lond., 1871.\n Willis, \u201cPope Honorius and the New Roman Dogma.\u201d Lond., 1879.\n Bottalla, \u201cPope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and\n History.\u201d London, 1868.\n\n [165] Wiggers, \u201cAugustinianism and Pelagianism.\u201d Andover, 1840.\n M\u00fcller, \u201cChr. Doctrine of Sin.\u201d 2 vols., Edin., 1868.\n Ritschl, \u201cHist. of Chr. Doctr. of Justific. and\n Reconciliation.\u201d Edin., 1872.\n\n [166] Laidlaw, \u201cThe Bible Doctrine of Man.\u201d Edin., 1879.\n Heard, \u201cTripartite Nat. of Man.\u201d 3rd ed., Edin., 1870,\n pp. 189-200.\n Delitzsch, \u201cBiblical Psychology.\u201d 2nd ed., Edin., 1869,\n pp. 128-142.\n Beck, \u201cOutlines of Biblical Psychology.\u201d Edin., 1877, p. 10.\n\n [167] For an entirely different representation of the Augustinian\n system see Cunningham, \u201cS. Austin and his Place in Hist.\n of Chr. Thought.\u201d Lond., 1886; esp. chaps. ii. and iii.,\n pp. 45-107.\n A good outline and defence in Hodge\u2019s \u201cSystem. Theol.\u201d\n Edin., 1874, Vol. ii., pp. 333-353.\n Mosheim, \u201cEccl. Hist.\u201d ed. by Dr. J. S. Reid, Lond., 1880,\n p. 210, notes 3 and 4; (pt. II., chap. v., \u00a7 25.)\n Mozley, \u201cAugustinian Doctrine of Predestination.\u201d\n Lond., 1855.\n\n [168] Hodge, \u201cSystematic Theology.\u201d Vol. ii., pp. 166-168.\n\n [169] Lardner, \u201cCredibility of the Gospel Hist.\u201d Vol. iv.,\n London, 1743.\n\n [170] Butcher, \u201cThe Ecclesiastical Calendar.\u201d London.\n Hampson, \u201cMedii \u00c6vi Kalend.\u201d\n\n [171] Gieseler, \u201cEcclesiastical History.\u201d Edinburgh, 1848,\n Vol. ii., pp. 141-145.\n\n [172] Tyler, \u201cImage Worship of Ch. of Rome contrary to Scripture\n and the Prim. Ch.\u201d London, 1847.\n\n [173] Tyler, \u201cWorship of Virgin Mary contrary to Script. and\n Faith of Ch. of first 5 Cents.\u201d London, 1851.\n Clagett, \u201cPrerogatives of Anna the Mother of God.\u201d\n London, 1688. Also by same: \u201cDiscourse on Worship of\n Virgin and Saints.\u201d London, 1686.\n\n [174] Cosin, \u201cScholastic History of Popish Transubstantiation.\u201d\n Lond., 1676.\n\n [175] Reuss, \u201cHistory of the N.T. Scriptures.\u201d Edin., 1884,\n \u00a7 377.\n Keil, \u201cIntroduction to the O.T.\u201d Edin., 1870, Vol. ii.,\n pp. 201-203.\n\n [176] Swainson, \u201cThe Nicene and Apostles\u2019 Creeds.\u201d Camb., 1875.\n Westcott, \u201cThe Historic Faith.\u201d Lond., 1883, note iii.,\n the Creeds.\n Harvey, \u201cHist. and Theology of the three Creeds.\u201d\n Camb., 1854.\n Hort, Two Dissertations: II. \u201cThe Constantinopolitan Creed\n and the Eastern Creeds of 4th cent.\u201d Camb., 1876.\n Schaff, \u201cCreeds of Christendom.\u201d Edin., 1877, vol. i.\n Lumby, \u201cHistory of the Creeds.\u201d Camb., 1873.\n Waterland, \u201cCrit. Hist. of Athanasian Creed.\u201d Camb., 1724.\n Heurtley, \u201cThe Athanasian Creed.\u201d Oxf., 1872.\n Ommaney, \u201cAth. Creed: an Exam. of Recent Theories\n respecting its Date and Origin.\u201d Lond., 1875.\n\n [177] Neale, \u201cHymns of the Eastern Church.\u201d Lond., 1863.\n \u201cMedi\u00e6val Hymns and Sequences.\u201d Lond., 1863.\n Gieseler, \u201cEcclesiastical History.\u201d Vol. iii., p. 353.\n\n [178] Hawkins, \u201cHistory of Music.\u201d Lond., 1853.\n\n [179] Hammond, \u201cAncient Liturgies.\u201d Oxf., 1878.\n Neale and Littledale, \u201cTranslations of Primitive Liturgies.\u201d\n Lond., 1869.\n Neale, \u201cEssays on Liturgiology.\u201d Lond., 1867.\n\n [180] Marriott, \u201cVestiarium Christianum: Origin and gradual\n development of Dress of Holy Ministry of Church.\u201d\n Lond., 1868.\n\n [181] Woltmann and Woermann, \u201cHistory of Painting.\u201d 2 vols.,\n Lond., 1886; vol. i., \u201cAnc., Early Chr. and Medi\u00e6val\n Painting.\u201d ed. by Prof. Sidney Colvin.\n \u201cHandbook of Painting: Italian Schools. Based on K\u00fcgler\u2019s\n Handbook.\u201d by Eastlake; new ed. by Layard, 2 vols.,\n Lond., 1886.\n\n [182] Ozanam, \u201cHist. of Civilization during the 5th Century.\u201d\n 2 vols.\n Lecky, \u201cHist. of European Morals.\u201d Vol. ii.\n\n [183] Smith\u2019s \u201cDictionary of Christian Biography.\u201d vol. iii.,\n p. 367.\n\n [184] Gilly, \u201cVigilantius and his Times.\u201d Lond., 1840.\n\n [185] Gieseler, \u201cEccl. Hist.\u201d ii. 148.\n\n [186] Ludolphus, \u201cHistory of Ethiopia.\u201d London, 1684.\n\n [187] Malan, \u201cGregory the Illuminator: his Life and Times.\u201d\n London, 1868.\n Article by Lipsius on Eznik in Smith\u2019s \u201cDictionary of Chr.\n Biography.\u201d Vol. ii., p. 439.\n\n [188] Muir, \u201cLife of Mohammed and Hist. of Islam.\u201d 4 vols., Lond.\n Bosworth Smith, \u201cMohammed and Mohammedanism.\u201d Lond., 1874.\n M\u00fchleisen-Arnold, \u201cIslam, its Hist., Chr. and Rel. to\n Christianity.\u201d 3rd ed., Lond., 1874.\n Deutsch, \u201cLiterary Remains: Islam.\u201d Lond., 1874.\n Stephens, \u201cChristianity and Islam.\u201d Lond., 1877.\n Mills, \u201cHist. of Mohammedanism.\u201d Lond., 1817.\n\n [189] Muir, \u201cAnnals of the Earlier Khalifate.\u201d\n\n [190] Finlay, \u201cHist. of Greece from Rom. Conquest.\u201d 7 vols.,\n Lond., 1864, new ed., 1877; vols. ii. and iii.\n Bower\u2019s \u201cLives of Popes.\u201d Vols. iii. and iv., Lond., 1754.\n Comber, \u201cDisc. on 2nd Council of Nic\u00e6a.\u201d Reprinted in\n Gibson\u2019s \u201cPreserv. from Popery.\u201d Lond., 1848.\n Didron, \u201cChristian Iconography.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1886.\n\n [191] Mendham, \u201cThe Seventh General Council, the Second of\n Nic\u00e6a.\u201d in which the worship of images was established.\n\n [192] Allatius, \u201cDe eccl. occid. et orient. perpetua\n consensione.\u201d Colon., 1669.\n Swete, \u201cHist. of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.\u201d\n Camb., 1876.\n Ffoulkes, \u201cChristendom\u2019s Divisions.\u201d London.\n Neale, \u201cHoly Eastern Church.\u201d 5 vols., London, 1847.\n\n [193] Popoff, \u201cHist. of Council of Florence.\u201d Transl. from\n Russian by Neale, London, 1861.\n\n [194] Lupton, \u201cSt. John of Damascus.\u201d London, 1882.\n\n [195] Badger, \u201cThe Nestorians and their Rituals.\u201d 2 vols.,\n London, 1852.\n\n [196] Baring-Gould, \u201cCurious Myths of the Middle Ages.\u201d\n Lond., 1881.\n\n [197] Murawieff, \u201cHist. of the Church of Russia.\u201d Trans. from\n the Russ., Lond., 1842.\n Romanoff, \u201cSketches of the Rites and Customs of the\n Gr\u00e6co-Russian Church.\u201d Lond., 1869.\n\n [198] Potthast, \u201cBiblioth. Hist. Modii \u00c6vi.\u201d Berol., 1862, with\n suppl. in 1868.\n D\u2019Achery, \u201cVett. Script. Spicilegium.\u201d (1655), 3 vols.,\n Par., 1783.\n Eccard, \u201cCorpus Hist. Medii \u00c6vi.\u201d 2 vols., Lps., 1723.\n Du Chesne, \u201cHist. Francorum Serr.\u201d 5 vols., Par., 1636.\n Parker, \u201cRer. Brit. Serr. Vetust.\u201d Lugd. B., 1587.\n Gale, \u201cHist. Brit., Saxon., Anglo-Dan. Scrr.\u201d 2 vols.,\n Oxf., 1691.\n Wharton, \u201cAnglia Sacra.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1691.\n Wilkins, \u201cConc. Brit. et Hib.\u201d 4 vols., Lond., 1737.\n Haddan and Stubbs, \u201cCouncils and Eccles. Documents.\u201d\n (Revision of Wilkins), Lond., 1879 ff.\n Maitland, \u201cThe Dark Ages: Essays on the State of Relig. and\n Lit. in 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Centuries.\u201d Lond., 1844.\n\n [199] Bryce, \u201cThe Holy Roman Empire.\u201d Lond., 1866.\n Ranke, \u201cHistory of the Latin and Teutonic Nations.\u201d\n Lond., 1886.\n\n [200] Ebrard, \u201cChristian Apologetics.\u201d 3 vols., Edin., 1886-1887,\n Vol. ii., p. 407; \u201cThe Religion of the Germans and that\n of the Slavs.\u201d\n\n [201] Mallet, \u201cNorthern Antiquities.\u201d London, 1848.\n Hallam, \u201cEurope during the Middle Ages.\u201d\n Guizot, \u201cHist. of Civiliz. in Europe.\u201d\n\n [202] Hodgkin, \u201cItaly and her Invaders: A.D. 376-476.\u201d 2 vols.,\n London, 1880.\n\n [203] Scott, \u201cUlfilas, the Apostle of the Goths.\u201d Cambr., 1885.\n Douse, \u201cIntroduction to the Gothic of Ulfilas.\u201d London, 1886.\n Bosworth\u2019s \u201cGothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels.\u201d Oxf., 1874.\n\n [204] Gibbon, \u201cDecline and Fall of Roman Empire.\u201d Chaps. xxxiii.,\n xxxvi., xxxvii.\n\n [205] Freeman, \u201cHistorical Essays.\u201d 3rd series, Lond.; \u201cThe Goths\n at Ravenna.\u201d\n\n [206] Ussher, \u201cBrit. Eccl. Antiqu.\u201d Lond., 1639.\n Perry, \u201cHist. of English Church.\u201d i., Lond., 1882.\n Lanigan, \u201cEccl. Hist. of Ireland.\u201d 4 vols., 2nd ed.,\n Dublin, 1829.\n Stokes, \u201cIreland and the Celtic Ch.\u201d Lond., 1886.\n Lingard, \u201cHist. and Antiqu. of Anglo-Sax. Ch.\u201d 2 vols.,\n Lond., 1845.\n Maclauchlan, \u201cEarly Scottish Church.\u201d Edinb., 1865.\n Reeves, \u201cThe Culdees of the British Islands.\u201d Dublin, 1864.\n Skene, \u201cCeltic Scotland.\u201d 3 vols., Edin., 1876; 2 ed., 1886.\n Bright, \u201cChapters of Early Eng. Ch. Hist.\u201d Oxf., 1878.\n Pryce, \u201cAncient British Church.\u201d Lond., 1886.\n\n [207] Todd, \u201cLife of St. Patrick.\u201d Dublin, 1864.\n Cusack, \u201cLife of St. Patrick.\u201d Lond., 1871.\n O\u2019Curry, \u201cLects. on Anc. Irish History.\u201d Dublin, 1861.\n Writings of St. Patrick. Transl. and ed. by Stokes and\n Wright, Lond., 1887.\n\n [208] Maclauchlan, \u201cEarly Scottish Church.\u201d Pp. 145-205.\n Adamnan, \u201cLife of Columba.\u201d Ed. by Dr. Reeves, Dublin, 1857.\n Smith, \u201cLife of Columba.\u201d Edin., 1798.\n Forbes, \u201cLives of Ninian, Columba, Kentigern.\u201d in series of\n Historians of Scotland.\n\n [209] Ussher, \u201cDiscourse of the Religion anciently Professed by\n the Irish and British.\u201d Lond., 1631.\n Maclauchlan, \u201cEarly Scottish Church.\u201d Pp. 239-250.\n Warren, \u201cRitual and Liturgy of the Celtic Church.\u201d\n Oxf., 1881.\n\n [210] Soames, \u201cThe Anglo-Saxon Church.\u201d 4th ed., Lond., 1856.\n Stanley, \u201cHistorical Memorials of Canterbury.\u201d Lond., 1855.\n Hook, \u201cLives of Archbishops of Canterbury.\u201d Vol. i.\n Sharon Turner, \u201cHist. of Anglo-Saxons to the Roman\n Conquest.\u201d 6 ed., 3 vols., Lond., 1836.\n\n [211] Lappenburg, \u201cAnglo-Saxon Kings.\u201d Lond., 1845.\n Bede, \u201cEccles. History.\u201d Book III.\n Maclauchlan, \u201cEarly Scottish Church.\u201d Pp. 217-238.\n\n [212] Gildas (\u2020 A.D. 570), \u201cDe excidio Britanni\u00e6.\u201d Engl. transl.\n by Giles, London, 1841.\n Bede (\u2020 A.D. 735), \u201cEccles. Hist. of Engl.\u201d Transl. by\n Giles, London, 1840.\n\n [213] Lanigan, \u201cEccl. Hist. of Ireland.\u201d iii., ch. 13.\n Innes, \u201cAncient Inhab. of Scotland.\u201d in the Series of\n Historians of Scotland.\n\n [214] Maclauchlan, \u201cEarly Scottish Church.\u201d p. 435.\n Reeves, \u201cThe Culdees of the British Islands.\u201d Dublin, 1864.\n Robertson, \u201cScotland under her Early Kings.\u201d Edin.,\n 2 vols., 1862.\n\n [215] Merivale, \u201cConversion of the Northern Nations.\u201d\n London, 1866.\n Maclear, \u201cApostles of Medi\u00e6val Europe.\u201d\n\n [216] That he first received the Latin name after his consecration\n as bishop in A.D. 723 is rendered more than doubtful by\n the fact that it is found in letters of earlier date. It\n is probably only a Latinizing of the Anglo-Saxon Winfrid\n or Wynfrith (from Vyn=fortune, luck, health; frid or\n frith=peace; therefore: peaceful, wholesome fortune)\n into the name, widely spread in Christian antiquity, of\n _Bonifatius_ (from _bonumfatum_, Greek: Eutyches, good\n luck). But the transposition into the form Bonifacius\n which might seem the equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon word\n \u201cBenefactor\u201d of the German people, is first met with,\n although even then only occasionally, in the 8th century,\n but afterwards always more and more frequently, and then\n is given to the popes and other earlier bearers of the name.\n By the 15th century the original and etymological style of\n writing the name and that used in early documents had been\n completely discarded and forgotten, till modern philology,\n diplomatics and epigraphies have again clearly vindicated\n the earlier form.\n\n [217] Wright, \u201cBiog. Britannica Literaria.\u201d Lond., 1842.\n Cox, \u201cLife of Boniface.\u201d Lond., 1853.\n Hope, \u201cBoniface.\u201d London, 1872.\n Maclear, \u201cApostles of Medi\u00e6val Europe.\u201d\n\n [218] Trench, \u201cLectures on Medi\u00e6val Church History.\u201d Lond., 1877.\n Hardwick, \u201cHistory of Christian Church during Middle Ages.\u201d\n\n [219] Mosheim, \u201cEccl. Hist.\u201d Ed. by Reid, London, 1880, p. 285,\n Cent. viii., pt. ii., ch. 5.\n Wright, \u201cBiographia Brit. Literaria.\u201d London, 1842.\n\n [220] Milman, \u201cHist. of Latin Christianity.\u201d Vol. ii., Trench\u2019s\n \u201cLectures on Medi\u00e6val Church History.\u201d\n\n [221] \u201cWilliam of Malmesbury\u2019s Chronicle of Kings of England.\u201d\n Bk. I., ch. 4.\n\n [222] Freeman, \u201cHistorical Essays.\u201d 2nd series: \u201cThe Southern\n Slavs.\u201d\n\n [223] Adam of Bremen, \u201cGesta Hammaburgensia.\u201d A.D. 788-1072.\n Pontoppidan, \u201cAnnales Eccles. Danic\u00e6.\u201d Copenhag., 1741.\n Merivale, \u201cConversion of the Northern Nations.\u201d\n London, 1865.\n\n [224] Geijer, \u201cHistory of the Swedes.\u201d Transl. by Turner,\n Lond., 1847.\n\n [225] Muir, \u201cAnnals of Early Khalifate.\u201d\n Ockley, \u201cHist. of Saracens and their Conquests in Syria,\n Persia and Egypt.\u201d\n\n [226] Cond\u00e9, \u201cHistory of Dominion of Arabs in Spain.\u201d 3 vols.\n Freeman, \u201cHist. and Conquests of the Saracens.\u201d 2nd ed.,\n Lond., 1876.\n Abd-el-Hakem, \u201cHistory of the Conquest of Spain.\u201d Tr. from\n Arabic by Jones, G\u00f6tt., 1858.\n\n [227] Kingsley, \u201cRoman and Teuton.\u201d Lectures in Univ. of Cambr.:\n \u201cThe Popes and the Lombards.\u201d\n\n [228] Crakenthorp, \u201cThe Defence of Constantine, with a Treatise\n on the Pope\u2019s Temporal Monarchy.\u201d Lond., 1621.\n\n [229] Platina, \u201cLives of Popes.\u201d Under John VII.\n Bower, \u201cLives of Popes.\u201d Vol. iv.\n Blondel, \u201cJoanna Papissa.\u201d Amst., 1657.\n Hase, \u201cChurch History.\u201d New York, 1855, p. 186.\n\n [230] Cunningham, \u201cDiscussions on Church Principles.\u201d\n Edin., 1863, pp. 101-163; \u201cTemporal Supremacy of the Pope\n and Gallican Liberties.\u201d\n Barrow, \u201cPope\u2019s Supremacy.\u201d London, 1683.\n\n [231] Hatch, \u201cGrowth of Church Institutions.\u201d ch. viii., National\n Churches, pp. 139-154.\n\n [232] Hefele, \u201cHistory of Councils.\u201d iii. 69, 131, 149.\n Field, \u201cOf the Church.\u201d Reprint by Eccl. Hist. Society,\n 5 vols., London, 1847; vol. iii., pp. 7, 245 ff.\n Hatch, \u201cGrowth of Church Institutions.\u201d ch. vii., The\n Metropolitan, pp. 128-135.\n\n [233] Lea, \u201cStudies in Church History.\u201d Philad., 1869.\n Lecky, \u201cHistory of European Morals.\u201d 3rd ed., 2 vols.,\n London, 1877.\n\n [234] Hatch, \u201cGrowth of Church Institutions.\u201d London, 1887,\n p. 43.\n\n [235] Marriott, \u201cVestiarium Christianum.\u201d P. 187 ff.,\n London, 1868.\n\n [236] Hatch, \u201cGrowth of Church Institutions.\u201d Ch. v., The Parish,\n pp. 89-97.\n\n [237] Hatch, \u201cGrowth of Church Institutions.\u201d Ch. ix., The\n Canonical Rule, pp. 157-172; Ch. x., The Cathedral\n Chapter, pp. 175-190.\n\n [238] Hatch, \u201cGrowth of Ch. Instit.\u201d Ch. xi., The Chapter of the\n Diocese, pp. 193-208.\n Stubbs, \u201cConstit. Hist. of England.\u201d Vol. iii.\n\n [239] Walcott, \u201cCathedralia.\u201d\n _Ibid._, \u201cSacred Arch\u00e6ology.\u201d\n Hatch, \u201cGrowth of Church Institutions.\u201d Ch. iii., Fixed\n Tenure of Parish Priest; Ch. iv., The Benefice.\n\n [240] Lecky, \u201cHist. of Europ. Morals.\u201d ii., 183-248.\n Montalembert, \u201cMonks of West from Benedict to Bernard.\u201d\n 7 vols., Edin., 1861 ff.\n\n [241] Hatch, \u201cGrowth of Church Institutions.\u201d Ch. vi., Tithes and\n their Distribution, pp. 101-117.\n\n [242] Roth, however, regards this _divisio_ as putting a complete\n stop to the secularization of church property.\n\n [243] Hatch, \u201cGrowth of Ch. Institutions.\u201d Ch. iv., The Benefice,\n pp. 61-77.\n Art. \u201cBenefice.\u201d in Smith\u2019s \u201cDict. of Chr. Antiquities.\u201d\n\n [244] Ayliffe, \u201cParergon Juris Canonici.\u201d Lond., 1726.\n Guizot, \u201cHist. of Civilization.\u201d Transl. by Hazlitt,\n Lond., 1846.\n Walcott, \u201cSacred Arch\u00e6ology.\u201d\n\n [245] Blondel, \u201cPseudo-Isid. et Turrianus vapulantes.\u201d\n Genev., 1628.\n\n [246] Hopkins, \u201cThe Organ, its hist. and construct.\u201d Lond., 1855.\n\n [247] Guest, \u201cHistory of English Rhythms.\u201d Vol. ii.,\n London, 1838.\n Wright, \u201cBiogr. Brit. Lit. Anglo-Saxon Period.\u201d\n London, 1842.\n Thorpe, \u201cC\u00e6dmon\u2019s Paraphrase in Anglo-Saxon with Engl.\n Transl.\u201d London, 1832.\n Conybeare, \u201cIllustr. of Anglo-Saxon Poetry.\u201d London, 1827.\n\n [248] Evans, \u201cTreatise on Chr. Doct. of Marriage.\u201d New\n York, 1870.\n Hammond, \u201cOn Divorces.\u201d In his Works, vol. i.,\n London, 1674.\n Cosin, \u201cArgument on the Dissolution of Marriage.\u201d Works,\n vol. iv., Oxf., 1854.\n Tertullian, Treatise in \u201cLib. of Fath.\u201d Oxf., 1854, with\n two Essays by Pusey, \u201cOn Second Marriages of the Clergy.\u201d\n and \u201cOn Early Views as to Marriage after Divorce.\u201d\n\n [249] Babington, \u201cInfluence of Chr. in promoting the Abolition\n of Slavery in Europe.\u201d London, 1864.\n Edwards, \u201cInquiry into the State of Slavery in the Early\n and Middle Ages of the Christian Era.\u201d Edin., 1836.\n\n [250] Smith\u2019s \u201cDict. of Chr. Antiq.\u201d Vol. i., pp. 785-792; Arts.:\n \u201cHospitality, Hospitals, Hospitium.\u201d\n\n\n [251] Haddan and Stubbs, \u201cCouncils and Eccl. Documents.\u201d\n Vol. iii., Oxf., 1871.\n\n [252] Barington, \u201cLit. Hist. of the Middle Ages.\u201d Lond., 1846.\n Hallam, \u201cEurope in Middle Ages.\u201d 2 vols., Lond., 1818.\n Trench, \u201cLect. on Med. Ch. Hist.\u201d Lond., 1877.\n\n [253] Lorentz, \u201cLife of Alcuin.\u201d Transl. by Slee, Lond., 1837.\n\n [254] Kingsley, \u201cRoman and Teuton: Paulus Diaconus.\u201d\n\n [255] Hampden, \u201cThe Scholastic Philosophy in its rel. to Chr.\n Theology.\u201d Oxf., 1833.\n Ueberweg, \u201cHist. of Philosophy.\u201d Vol. i., pp. 358-365.\n\n [256] Mullinger, \u201cSchools of Charles the Great and Restoration\n of Education in the 9th cent.\u201d Cambr., 1877.\n\n [257] Cassiodorus\u2019 work in 12 bks., _De rebus gestes Gotorum_,\n has indeed been lost, but about A.D. 550 Jornandes, who\n also used other documents, embodied this work in his\n _De Getarum orig. et reb. gestis_.\n\n [258] Gildas wrote about A.D. 560 his: _Liber querulis de\n excidio Britanni\u00e6_ (Eng. transl. in \u201cSix Old English\n Chronicles.\u201d London, Bohn).\n\n [259] Nennius wrote about A.D. 850 his: _Eulogium Britanni\u00e6 s.\n Hist. Britonum_ (Engl. transl. in \u201cSix Old Engl. Chron.\u201d).\n\n [260] Collected Ed. of Alfred\u2019s works, by Bosworth, 2 vols.,\n Lond., 1858.\n Fox, \u201cWhole Wks. of Alfred the Great, with Essays on Hist.,\n Arts and Manners of 9th cent.\u201d 3 vols., Oxf., 1852.\n Spelman, \u201cLife of Alfred the Great.\u201d Oxf., 1709.\n Pauli, \u201cLife of Alfred the Gt.\u201d transl. with Alfred\u2019s\n Orosius, Lond., 1853.\n Hughes, \u201cAlfred the Great.\u201d\n Giles, \u201cLife and Times of King Alfred the Great.\u201d\n Lond., 1848.\n\n [261] Robertson, \u201cHist. of Chr. Church.\u201d Vol. ii., London, 1856;\n pp. 154 ff.\n Dorner, \u201cHist. Development of Person of Chr.\u201d Div. II.,\n vol. i.\n\n [262] Ussher, \u201cGotteschalci et controv. ab eo mot\u00e6 hist.\u201d\n Dubl., 1631.\n\n\n\n\n TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES.\n\n\n The following corrections have been made in the text:\n\n \u00a7 7, 1.\n Sentence starting: There are mysterious phenomena....\n - added omitted Word \u2018to\u2019\n (which seemed to establish)\n\n \u00a7 14.\n Sentence starting: The Levite Barnabas,...\n - \u2018ministery\u2019 replaced with \u2018ministry\u2019\n (and strengthened his own ministry)\n\n \u00a7 16, 1.\n Sentence starting: That Babylon is mentioned....\n - \u201823\u2019 replaced with \u201813\u2019\n (1 Pet. v. 13)\n\n \u00a7 20.\n Sentence starting: As the history of....\n - \u2018beginings\u2019 replaced with \u2018beginnings\u2019\n (the beginnings of the church)\n\n \u00a7 25, 2b.\n Sentence starting: The school of Baur....\n - \u2018\u00a7 183, 9\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 182, 7\u2019\n (school of Baur (\u00a7 182, 7))\n\n \u00a7 26, 4.\n Sentence starting: The most important of extant....\n - \u2018Hippolylus\u2019 replaced with \u2018Hippolytus\u2019\n (and of Hippolytus \u1f1c\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2)\n\n \u00a7 27, 2.\n Sentence starting: After him there arose...\n - \u2018Hebdomes\u2019 replaced with \u2018Hebdomas\u2019\n (the so-called Hebdomas)\n\n \u00a7 27, 11.\n Sentence starting: He consequently developed...\n - \u2018irreconcileable\u2019 replaced with \u2018irreconcilable\u2019\n (the irreconcilable opposition of righteousness)\n\n \u00a7 31, 1.\n Sentence starting: The latter especially gave....\n - \u2018gramatico\u2019 replaced with \u2018grammatico\u2019\n (grammatico-historical examination of scripture.)\n\n \u00a7 31, 8.\n Sentence starting: Sextus Julius Africanus,...\n - \u2018Septimus\u2019 replaced with \u2018Septimius\u2019\n (campaign of Septimius Severus)\n\n \u00a7 32, 6 f.\n Sentence starting: It assigns the founding....\n - \u2018\u00a7 12, 2\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 13, 2\u2019\n (Christ\u2019s promise (\u00a7 13, 2).)\n\n \u00a7 35, 2.\n Sentence starting: Only a few unimportant....\n - \u2018immobolis\u2019 replaced with \u2018immobilis\u2019\n (immobilis et irreformabilis)\n\n \u00a7 38, 1.\n Sentence starting: Thereafter they were used....\n - \u2018were\u2019 replaced with \u2018where\u2019\n (and spots where martyr\u2019s relics)\n\n \u00a7 40, 1.\n Sentence starting: Themison, Alcibiades\u2019 successor,...\n - \u2018\u1f10\u03c0\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae\u2019\n (a \u039a\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae,)\n\n \u00a7 40, 4.\n Sentence starting: The following are some of....\n - \u2018\u00a7 57, 3\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 37, 3\u2019\n (On _dies stationum_ (\u00a7 37, 3) nothing)\n\n \u00a7 44, 4.\n Sentence starting: But twenty years later....\n - \u2018portea\u2019 replaced with \u2018postea\u2019\n (esset postea glori\u00e6)\n Sentence starting: Martin of Tours....\n - \u2018\u00a7 47, 15\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 47, 14\u2019\n (Martin of Tours (\u00a7 47, 14) established)\n\n \u00a7 45, 4.\n Sentence starting: But the Council at Macon....\n - \u2018\u00a7 85, 1\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 86, 1\u2019\n (Carolingian legislation (\u00a7 86, 1).)\n\n \u00a7 46, 3.\n Sentence starting: In this year, however,...\n - \u2018\u00a7 53, 2\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 50, 2\u2019\n (the Council of Sardica (\u00a7 50, 2),)\n\n \u00a7 46, 6.\n Sentence starting: To his legates at the Council....\n - \u2018Ephesns\u2019 replaced with \u2018Ephesus\u2019\n (at the Council of Ephesus)\n\n \u00a7 47, 15.\n Sentence starting: He deserves special credit for....\n - \u2018\u00a7 69, 4-6\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 59, 4-6\u2019\n (Hymn Composition, \u00a7 59, 4-6)\n\n \u00a7 47, 22c.\n Sentence starting: Ordained deacon against his....\n - \u2018apocrisarius\u2019 replaced with \u2018apocrisiarius\u2019\n (a papal _apocrisiarius_ in Constantinople)\n\n \u00a7 48, 2.\n Sentence starting: For the history of heresies....\n - \u2018\u00a7 57, 21h\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 47, 21f\u2019\n (the author of _Pr\u00e6destinatus_ (\u00a7 47, 21f).)\n\n \u00a7 48, 7.\n Sentence starting: This cannot, however, be said....\n - \u2018Eutchyes\u2019 replaced with \u2018Eutyches\u2019\n (against Nestorius and Eutyches)\n\n \u00a7 50, 4.\n Sentence starting: For the restoration of church....\n - \u2018followship\u2019 replaced with \u2018fellowship\u2019\n (received back into church fellowship)\n\n \u00a7 50, 6.\n Sentence starting: Basil the Great wrote 4 bks....\n - \u2018Eunonius\u2019 replaced with \u2018Eunomius\u2019\n (4 bks. against Eunomius)\n - \u2018Amphilochum\u2019 replaced with \u2018Amphilochium\u2019\n (Ad Amphilochium, against the)\n\n \u00a7 52, 4.\n Sentence starting: He appealed to an \u0153cumenical....\n - \u2018\u00a7 467\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 46, 7\u2019\n (to =Leo the Great= (\u00a7 46, 7) at Rome)\n\n \u00a7 52, 5.\n Sentence starting: The strict Monophysites of....\n - \u2018Diophysites\u2019 replaced with \u2018Dyophysites\u2019\n (at the head of the Dyophysites)\n\n \u00a7 56, 4.\n Sentence starting: The pre-eminence of the Christian....\n - \u2018Quadrigesma\u2019 replaced with \u2018Quadragesima\u2019\n (the whole Quadragesima season)\n\n \u00a7 59 1,\n Sentence starting: This view prevailed....\n - \u2018\u00a7 160, 8\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 161, 8\u2019\n (referred to by the Protestants (\u00a7 161, 8))\n\n \u00a7 59, 4.\n Sentence starting: Under the name of Troparies,...\n - \u2018\u00a7 71, 2\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 70, 2\u2019\n (church service of Psalms (\u00a7 70, 2).)\n\n \u00a7 63.\n Sentence starting: Owing to various diversities....\n - \u2018\u00a7 61, 7\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 61, 1\u2019\n (and discipline (\u00a7 61, 1),)\n\n \u00a7 67, 7.\n Sentence starting: For the executing of his spiritual....\n - \u2018divisons\u2019 replaced with \u2018divisions\u2019\n (holders of the four divisions)\n\n \u00a7 71, 1.\n Sentence starting: The Catholic polemists of the....\n - \u2018Manichi\u00e6an\u2019 replaced with \u2018Manich\u00e6an\u2019\n (to a Manich\u00e6an family)\n\n \u00a7 73, 5.\n Sentence starting: Secret remnants of this sect,...\n - \u2018\u00a7 162, 10\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 163, 10\u2019\n (a new departure (\u00a7 163, 10))\n\n \u00a7 76, 8.\n Sentence starting: Pope Gregory the Great,...\n - \u2018694\u2019 replaced with \u2018604\u2019\n (Gregory the Great, A.D. 590-604)\n\n \u00a7 77.\n Sentence starting: This, however, is certain,...\n - \u2018\u00a7 23, 6\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 22, 6\u2019\n (end of the 3rd century (\u00a7 22, 6))\n\n \u00a7 77, 4.\n Sentence starting: Two princes of the Jutes....\n - removed duplicate \u2018of\u2019\n (led a horde of Angles and Saxons)\n\n \u00a7 77, 6.\n Sentence starting: His wife Eanfled, Edwin\u2019s daughter....\n - \u2018decidly\u2019 replaced with \u2018decidedly\u2019\n (most decidedly preferred it)\n\n \u00a7 78, 8.\n Sentence starting: Thus he lets himself be informed....\n - \u2018forbiden\u2019 replaced with \u2018forbidden\u2019\n (and storks is absolutely forbidden)\n\n \u00a7 86.\n Sentence starting: This institution, however,...\n - \u2018ust\u2019 replaced with \u2018just\u2019\n (just as they chose)\n\n \u00a7 87, 3.\n sentence starting: Langen fixes the date....\n - \u2018\u00a7 290, 5\u2019 replaced with \u2018\u00a7 90, 5\u2019\n (to Servatus Lupus (\u00a7 90, 5))\n\n \u00a7 91, 2.\n Sentence starting: At a Synod at Gentiliacum....\n - \u2018Gentiliscum\u2019 replaced with \u2018Gentiliacum\u2019\n (At a Synod at Gentiliacum)\n\n Footnote 82.\n - \u2018Assumtio\u2019 replaced with \u2018Assumptio\u2019\n (Enoch, Assumptio, Ezra, Bk. of Jub.)\n\n Footnote 251.\n - \u2018Hadden\u2019 replaced with \u2018Haddan\u2019\n (Haddan and Stubbs)","title":"Church History, Volume 1 (of 3)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":259245}