Skip to main content

Full text of "Smiths Dictionaries Continuation Bible Dictionary Christian Church, Greek-Roman Classics, Atlas, etc.18 vols. 5 sets, 5 vols.1828..1896."

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at jhttp : //books . qooqle . com/ 


Digitized by 


Digitized by 


Digitized by 








. J. R. Mozley, Esq. 


Professor Stokes, D.D. 


Professor Salmon, D.D. 


. Professor Westoott, D.D. 

Oriqenistic Controversies 

. A. W. W. Dale, Esq. 


. Professor Salmon, D.D. • 

Patriarchs of Alexandria, A 
Jerusalem, and Constantd 

ntioch, 1 Canon Bright, Precentor Venables 
iople . ) Rev. W. M. Sinclair. 


. Professor Stokes, D.D. 

Paulinos of Nola 

. Canon Phillott. 


. Professor Ince, D.D. 

Person of Christ 

. Professor Stokes & Rev. C. J. Ball 


Dr. Edersheim. 


Professor Salmon, D.D. 


. Rev. J. Barmby. 

Predestination . 

. Rev. E. S. PfoulkeH. 


. Rev. M. B. Cowell. 


. Rev. W. Lock. 

\ Quicunque Volt 

. Dr. Cazenove. 

ft Sibylune Oracles 

. Rev. J. H. Lupton. 

S Simon Magus 

. Professor Salmon, D.D. 

^js Socrates and Sozomen . 

. Professor Milligan, D.D. 

. Tatian . 

. Professor Fuller. 

V Teaching of tiie Apostles 

. Professor Salmon, D.D. •', , 


Professor Fuller. 

Testaments of the XII. Pa i r 

iaiichs Rev. R. Sinker. - 

Theodore of Mopsdestia 

. Professor Swete, D.D. 

Theodore of Tarsus 

. The Bishop of Chester. 

Theodobet . . . . 

Precentor Venables. 

Thomas Harklensis 

Rev. Dr. Gwyiuie. 

* The*Holy Trinity 

. Archdeacon Cheethani, JJ.D. 


Professor Lipsius, D.D. ' 

* -.Verse Writers 

. Rev. W. Lock. 


. Canon Kaine. 

Digitized by 


Digitized by 



Digitized by 


Digitized by VjOOQ IC 

Digitized by 










i-bebexdary op st. Paul's ; principal op king's college, London : preacher op 
lkscolm's ixn; H05f. chaplain to the queen, and chaplain to T1IE 


N— Z. 



Digitized by 


loxdox : 


Digitized by 



It is with much thankfulness that the Editors issue the final 
volume of a work so extensive as this Dictionary of Early Christian 
Biography, and liable to so many contingencies. No scholar, they 
think, will be surprised that it has taken somewhat longer to 
complete this volume than was requisite for the second and third. 
Not only is it larger ; but the changes and chances of life expose 
the conduct of such a work to increasing difficulties as it proceeds. 
Too many of those whose names are recorded in the following List 
of Contributors have passed away since the work was commenced, 
and many others have advanced to more distinguished and more 
laborious positions. From these various causes not a few difficulties 
and disappointments have been encountered; but they have been 
surmounted by the generosity and enthusiasm with which the 
enterprise has been pursued by the contributors, especially by some 
of the most learned and at the same time the most closely engaged 
in other duties. The plan of the work, as explained in the Preface 
to the Second Volume, has been maintained, the only exception 
being that it has not been found practicable to give the names of all 
the Bishops who are known only by their signatures at Councils 
and by nothing more. But it is hoped that the endeavour to give 
some account of all names directly or indirectly connected with 
Christian Literature has been substantially carried out. One other 
explanation may be desirable in reference to a doubt expressed by 
some critics, on the publication of the third volume, whether a 
single volume would be sufficient to do justice to the names in the 
letters from N to Z. As near a calculation, however, as was possible 
had been made of the space requisite for this purpose, and a 
reference to the more important names at the close of the volume 
will show that this Dictionary is not liable to the charge, to which 
many biographical works are open, of scamping the treatment of 
the later names of the alphabet. A fair test of the equality of 
treatment in this respect may be afforded by examining the space 
occupied by names in any Index to Patristic Literature and Ecclesi- 
astical History, such as the Index to Ceillier's work, or Chevalier's 
invaluable Bio-Bibliographie. An Index is a mere witness to the 
material contained in the work or series of works to which it applies, 


Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


and is equally impartial throughout. It is satisfactory, therefore, to 
find that the proportionate space occupied by the letters contained in 
this volume — about three-sevenths of the whole — is very nearly the 
same as is occupied by the same letters in both those indices. The 
Editors must also express their sense of the liberality with which, 
the publisher has facilitated this completeness of the work. 

The contingencies and anxieties, to which the Editors have 
referred, render them the more bound to record their grateful thanks 
to the contributors and advisers who have continued their support 
to them, notwithstanding their own varying and increasing burdens. 
More especially are they bound to express their warm gratitude to 
the Bishop of Chester and to Dr. Salmon, the Regius Professor of 
Divinity at Dublin, for the kindness with which they have continued 
to read through the proofs of the work to the very last, and to assist 
the Editors with their learned counsel. A special acknowledgment 
is also due from them to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, not- 
withstanding his arduous responsibilities, has found time to complete, 
even to the smallest name, his treatment of the persons connected 
with St. Cyprian. They find it difficult to single out other names 
where so many have been generous and unwearied ; but one other 
colleague claims a peculiar tribute of gratitude. The devotion, the 
accurate and thoughtful learning, the generous labour and the 
unwearying care, of the Rev. Charles Hole, Lecturer in Ecclesiastical 
History at King's College, London, have conferred incalculable 
advantages on this work, and have, it is hoped, rendered a degree 
of accuracy practicable which, without such help, would have been 
scarcely attainable in so large a work, conducted under such condi- 
tions. With all these efforts, there must remain much to be desired 
in this first effort to furnish a complete Biographical Cyclopaedia of 
Christian Antiquity. But the Editors venture to hope that, by the 
combined efforts of the contributors, a great advance has been made 
in this direction, and that the work may materially promote, both 
here and abroad, a fuller comprehension of Church History. 

Digitized by 




rsrriALs. names. 

A.H.D. A. Arthur Herbert Dtke Acland, Esq., M.A., M.P., 
Of Christ Church, Oxford. 

S. A. Sheldon Amos, Esq., M.A., 

Late Professor of Jurisprudence in University College, 

31. F. A. The late Rev. Marsham Frederick, M.A., 

Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford, and Member of the 
Oxford Mission to Calcutta. 

H. T. A. Rev. Henry Thomas Armfield, M.A., F.S.A., 

Rector of Colne-Engaine, Essex; late Vice-Principal of 
the Theological College, Salisbury. 

F. A. Rev. Frederick Arnold, B.A., 

Of Christ Church, Oxford. 

T. A. Thomas Arnold, Esq., M.A., 

Of University College, Oxford; Fellow of the Royal 
University of Ireland. 

W. T. A. William Thomas Arnold, Esq., M.A., 
Of University College, Oxford. 

C. B. Rev. Churchill Babington, D.D., F.L.S., 

Disney Professor of Archaeology in the University of 
Cambridge; Rector of Cockfield, Suffolk; formerly 
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 

G. P. B. Rev. George Percy Badger, D.C.L., late Chaplain, Bombay 


H. B — y. Rev. Henry Bailey, D.D., 

Rector of West Tarring and Honorary Canon of Canter- 
bury Cathedral; late Warden of St. Augustine's 
College, Canterbury, and formerly Fellow of St. John's 
College, Cambridge. 

C. J. B. Rev. Charles James Ball, M.A., 

Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn, and Master in Merchant 
Taylors' School. 
J. B — y. Rev. James Barmby, B.D., 

Yicar of Pittington, Durham ; formerly Fellow of Mag- 
dalen College, Oxford, and Principal of Bishop 
Hatfield Hall, Durham. 

a 2 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



A. B. Most Eev. Alfred Barky, D.D., 

Lord Bishop of Sydney. 

S. A. B. S. A. Bennett, Esq., B.A., 
Of Lincoln's Inn. 

E. W. B. Bight Hon. and Most Eev. Edward White Benson, D.D., 
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. 

T. S. B. Eev. Thomas S. Berry, B.D., 
Trinity College, Dublin. 

W. B. Walter Besant, Esq., M.A., 
(in Diet. Ant.) Secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund ; late Scholar 
of Christ's College, Cambridge. 

E. B. B. Eev. Edward Bickersteth Birks, M.A., 

Vicar of St. Michael's, and Fellow of Trinity College, 

C. W. B. Eev. Charles William Boase, M.A., 

Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford. 

H. B. The late Henry Bradshaw, Esq., M.A., 
(in Diet. Biog.) Fellow of King's College, Cambridge ; Librarian of the 

University of Cambridge. 
W. B. Eev. AVilliam Bright, D.D., 

Canon of Christ Church, Oxford; Eegius Professor of 
Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. 

H. B. The late Eev. Henry Browne, M.A., 
(in Diet. Ant.) Vicar of Pevensey, and Prebendary of Chichester Cathedral. 

I. B. Isambard Brunel, Esq., D.C.L., 

Of Lincoln's Inn ; Chancellor of the Diocese of Ely. 

J. B. James Bryce, Esq., D.C.L., M.P., 

Of Lincoln's Inn ; Regius Professor of Civil Law in the 
University of Oxford. 

T. E. B. Thomas Eyburn Buchanan, Esq., M.A., 
Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. 

D. B. The late Eev. Daniel Butler, M.A., 

Rector of Thwing, Yorkshire. 

J. M. C. Eev. John Moore Capes, M.A., 
Of Balliol College, Oxford. 

J. G. C. Eev. John Gibson Cazenove, D.D., F.E.S.E., 

Subdean and Chancellor of St. Mary's Cathedral, Edin- 
burgh ; formerly Provost of Cumbrae College, N.B. 

C. Yen. Samuel Cheetham, D.D., 

Archdeacon of Eochester ; Canon of Eochester ; formerly 
Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. 

C. G. C. The late Eev. Charles Granville Clarke, M.A., 

Vicar of Langley Fitzurse, Wilts; formerly Fellow of 
Worcester College, Oxford. 

E. B. C Edward Byles Cowell, Esq., M.A., 

Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Cambridge, 
Fellow of Corpus Christi College. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



M. B. C. Bev. Maurice Btles Cowell, M.A., 
Vicar of Ash-Bocking. 

F. D. F. H. Blackburne Daxiell, Esq., M.A., 

Of Lincoln's Inn. 

6. W. D. Bev. George William Daniell, M.A., 

Chaplain of Dulwich College; formerly Chaplain and 
Censor of King's College, London. 

T. W. D. The late Bev. T. W. Davids, 
Of Upton. 

L. D. Bev. Lionel Davidson, M.A., 

Sector of Chedburgh. 

J. LL D. Bev. John Llewelyn Da vies, M.A., 

Sector of Christchurch, Marylebone ; Chaplain in Ordinary 
to the Queen; formerly Fellow of Trinity College, 

C. D. Bev. Cecil Deedes, M.A., 

Eector of Wickham St. Paul; formerly Chaplain of 
Christ Church, Oxford, and Vicar of St. Mary 
Magdalen, Oxford. 

J. De S. Bev. John De Soyres, M.A., 

Curate of St. John the Baptist, Great Marlborough 

W. P. D. Bev. William Purdie Dickson, D.D., 

Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow. 

A. B. C. D. Miss A. B. C. Dunbar. 

S. J. E. Bev. Samuel John Eales, M.A., 

Formerly Principal of St. Boniface's Mission House, 
Warminster, and Head Master of the Grammar 
School, Halstead, Essex. 

A. E. Bev. A. Edersheim, D.D., Ph.D., 

Formerly Vicar of Loders, Bridport, and Warburtonian 
Lecturer at Lincoln's Inn. 

J. E. Bev. John Ellertos, M.A., 

Eector of White-Boding. 

C. J. E. The late Bev. C. J. Elliott, M.A., 

Vicar of Winkfield, Windsor; Hon. Canon of Christ 
Church, Oxford; formerly Crosse and Tyrwhitt 
Scholar in the University of Cambridge. 

E. S. Ff. Bev. Edmund Salusbury Ffoulkes, B.D., 

Vicar of St. Mary the Virgin, Oxford ; formerly Fellow 
and Tutor of Jesus College, Oxford. 

A- P. F. The late Bight Bev. Alexander Penrose Forbes, D.C.L., 
Bishop of Brechin. 

W. H. F. Hon. and Bev. William Henry Fremantle, M.A., 

Canon of Canterbury ; Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford ; 
formerly Bector of St. Mary's, Marylebone, and Fellow 
of All Souls College, Oxford. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



J. M. F. Eev. John Meb Fuller, M.A., 

Professor of Ecclesiastical History in King's College, 
London ; Vicar of Bexley and .Rural Dean ; formerly 
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 

J. G. Eev. James Gammack, M.A., LL.D., 


C. D. G. Kev. Christian D. Ginsbueg, LL.D., 
British Museum. 

C G. Eev. Charles Gore, M.A., 

Librarian of the Pusey Library, Oxford; Fellow of 
Trinity College, Oxford. 

W. F. G. The late Eev. William Frederick Greenfield, M.A., 
Master of the Lower School, Dulwich College. 

E. S. G. The late Eev. Eobert Scarlett Grignon, B.A., 
Formerly Eector of St. John's, Lewes. 

J. Gw. Eov. John Gwynn, D.D., 

Archbishop King's Divinity Lecturer in the University 
of Dublin ; formerly Dean of Deny. 

A. W. H. The late Eev. Arthur West Haddan, B.D., 

Eector of Barton-on-the-Heath ; Hon. Canon of Worcester ; 
sometime Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. 

C. E. H. Eev. Charles Edward Hammond, M.A., 

Eector of Wootton, Northampton; formerly Fellow and 
Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford. 

E. H. Eev. Edwin Hatch, M.A., 

Eector of Purleigh ; formerly Vice-Principal of St. Mary 
Hall, Oxford ; Bampton Lecturer, 1880. 

E. C. H. Eev. Edwards Comerford Hawkins, M.A., 

Vicar of St. Bride, City of London; formerly Head 
Master of St. John's Foundation School, Leatherhead. 

L. H. Eev. Lewis Hensley, M.A., 

Vicar of Hitchin, Herts ; Hon. Canon of St. Alban's ; 
formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

C. H. Eev. Charles Hole, B.A., 

Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History at King's College, 
London ; formerly Eector of Loxbear. 

H. S. H. Eev. Henry Scoti 1 Holland, M.A., 

Senior Student and Tutor of Christ Church, Oxford; 
Canon of St. Paul's. 

H. Eev. Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D., 

Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge; Chaplain 
to the Bishop of Winchester. 

H. J. H. The late Eev. Henry John Hotham, M.A., 

Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

J. H. The late John Hull ah, Esq., LL.D., 

Honorary Fellow of King's College, London. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



W. I. Rev. William Ince, D.D., 

Canon of Christ Church, Oxford; Eegius Professor of 
Divinity in tho University of Oxford. 

W. J. Eev. William Jackson, M.A., F.S.A., F.R.A.S., 

Formerly Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford ; Bampton 
Lecturer for 1875. 

G. A. J. Eev. Georgk Andrew Jacob, D.D., 

Formerly Head Master of Christ's Hospital, London. 

D. R. J. Eev. David Eice Jones, B.A. 

W. J. J. Eev. William James Josun-g, M.A., 

Eector of Moulton, Suffolk ; formerly Fellow and Tutor 
of Christ's College, Cambridge. 

C. F. K. C. F. Keary, Esq., . . 

Of the British Museum. 

E. J. K. Eev. Eichard John Knowling, M.A., 

Chaplain, Censor, and Lecturer of King's . College, 

S. L. Eev. Stanley Leathes, D.D., 

Professor of Hebrew in King's College, London; Pro- 
bendary of St. Paul's; Eector of Cliffe-at-Hoo, 
Eochester ; Bampton Lecturer, 1874. 

L. Eight Eev. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, D.D., 

Bishop of Durham. 

R. A. L. Eichard Adelbert Lipsius, D.D., 

Professor of Divinity in the University of Jena. 

W. L. Eev. Walter Lock, M.A., 

Fellow of St. Mary Magdalen College, and Sub-warden of 
Keble College, Oxford; Examining Chaplain to the 
Bishop of Lichfield. 

J. M. L. John Malcolm Ludlow, Esq., 

Of Lincoln's Inn ; Eegistrar of Friendly Societies. 

J. E. L. Eev. John Robkrt Lunn, B.D., 

Vicar of Marton-cum-Grafton, Yorkshire ; formerly Fellow 
6f St. John's College, Cambridge. 

J. II. L. Eev. Joseph Hirst Lupton, M.A., 

Surmaster of St. Paul's School ; formerly Fellow of St. 
John's College, Cambridge. 

G. F. M. Rev. George Frederick Maclear, D.D., 

Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury. 

A. CM. Arthur Cornwallis Madan, Esq., M.A., 

Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford. 

F. W. M. Frederic W. Madden, Esq., M.E.A.S., 
Brighton College. 

S. M. The late Rev. Spencer Maxsel, M.A., 

Vicar of Trumpington ; formerly Fellow of Trinity College, 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



W. B. M. The late Rev. Wharton B. Marriott, M.A., 

Formerly of Eton College, and sometime Fellow of Exeter 
College, Oxford. 

A. J. M. Bev. Arthur James Mason, M.A., 

Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge ; Canon of Truro ; 
Rector of All Hallows, Barking. 

G. M. Rev. George Mead, M.A., 

Chaplain to the Forces, Netley. 

F. M. Rev. Frederick Meyriok, M.A., 

Rector of Blickling, Norfolk; Prebendary of Lincoln 
Cathedral ; Chaplain to the Bishop of Lincoln ; 
formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. 

W. M. Rev. William Milligan, D.D., 

Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the 
University of Aberdeen. 

G. H. M. Rev. George Herbert Moberly, M.A., 

Master of St. Nicholas's Hospital, Sarum ; formerly 
Principal of the Theological College, Lichfield, and 
Prebendary of Lichfield; Fellow of Corpus Christi 
College, Oxford. 

T. D. C. M. Rev. Thomas Daniel Cox Morse, 

Vicar of Christ Church, Newgate, City of London. 

H.C.G.M. Rev. Handley Carr Glyn Moole, M.A., 

Principal of Ridley Hall, and late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 

J. R. M. John Rickards Mozley, Esq., M.A., 

Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. 

J. B. M. J. Bass Mullinger, Esq., M.A., 

St. John's College, Cambridge. 

A. N. Alexander Nesbitt, Esq., F.S.A., 

Oldlands, Uckfield. 

P. 0. Rev. Phipps Onslow, B.A., 

Rector of Upper Sapey, Worcestershire. 

F. P. Rev. Francis Paget, D.D., 

Regius Professor of Pastoral Theology, and Canon of 
Christ Church in the University of Oxford. 

G. W. P. Rev. Gregory Walton Pennethorne, M.A., 

Vicar of Heathfield, Sussex; formerly Vice-Principal of 
the Theological College, Chichester. 

W.G.F.P. Walter G. F. Phillimobe, Esq., D.C.L., 

Of the Middle Temple; Chancellor of the Diocese of 
Lincoln ; formerly Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. 

H. W. P. Rev. Henry Wright Phillott, M.A., 

Rector of Staunton-on-Wye ; Praelector of Hereford 
Cathedral; formerly Student of Christ Church and 
Master in Charterhouse School. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


A. P. Bev. Alfred Plummer, M.A., D.D., 

Master of University College, Durham. 

E. H. P. Very Rev. Edward Hayes Plumfi-re, D.D., 

(or P.) Dean of Wells ; formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, 


De Presskxse. Eev. E. Dk Pressense, 
Of Paris. 

J. B. Bev. James Raine, M.A., D.C.L., 

Bector of All Saints, York ; Canon of York ; formerly 
Fellow of the University of Durham. 

W. B. Eight Eev. William Beeves, D.D., 

Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore. 

H. B. R. Bev. Hknry Bobert Reynolds, D.D., 
Principal of Cheshnnt College. 

G. S. Bev. George Salmon-, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., F.B.S., 

Chancellor of St. Patrick's Cathedral, and Regius Professor 
of Divinity in the University of Dublin. 

P. S. Bev. Philip Schaff, D.D., 

Bible House, New York. 

F. H. A. S. Bev. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L..LL.D., 

Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon, Middlesex. 

W. E. S. The late Bev. William Edward Scudamore, M.A., 

Bector of Ditcbingham ; formerly Fellow of St. John'n 
College, Cambridge. 

J. S. Bev. John Sharpe, B.D., 

Bector of Elmley-Lovett ; formerly Fellow of Christ's 
College, Cambridge. 

B. S. The late Benjamin Shaw, Esq., M.A., 

Of Lincoln's Inn; formerly Fellow of Trinity College, 

IL C. S. Eev. Henry Cary Shuttleworth, 

Lecturer on Pastoral Theology in King's College, London ; 
Bector of St. Nicholas Cole Abbey, City of London. 

W. M. S. Bev. William Macdonald Sinclair, MA., 

Vicar of St. Stephen's, Westminster; Chaplain to the 
Bishop of London. 

R. S. Bev. Bobert Sinker, B.D., 

Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

I. G. S. Bev. Isaac Gregory Smith, B.D., 

Vicar of Great Malvern ; Prebendary of Hereford Cathe- 
dral ; formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford ; 
Bampton Lecturer for 1873. 

E. P. S. Very Rev. Robert Payne Smith, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. 

R. T. S. Eev. R. Travers Smith, D.D., 

Canon of St. Patrick's Cathedral, and Vicar of St. 
Bartholomew's, Dublin. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


J. W. S. Rev. John William Stanbridge, B.D., 

Hector of Bainton; formerly Fellow and Tutor of St. 
John's College, Oxford. 

W. S. Eev. William Stewart, D.D., 

Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of 

a. T. S. Eev. G. T. Stokes, D.D., 

Vicar of All Saints, Blackrock, Dublin, and Professor of . 
Ecclesiastical History in the University of Dublin. 

J. S — t. John Stuart, Esq., LL.D., 

Of the General Register House, Edinburgh. 

S. Eight Eev. William Stubbs, D.D., 

Bishop of Chester; formerly Regius Professor of Modern 
History in the University of Oxford. 

C. A. S. The late Eev. Charles Anthony Swainsox, D.D., 

Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of 
Cambridge; Canon of Chichester Cathedral; Master 
of Christ's College, Cambridge. 

H. B. S. Eev. Henry Barclay Swcte, D.D., 

Eector of Ashdon; Professor of Pastoral Theology in 
King's College, London ; formerly Fellow and Di- 
vinity Lecturer of Gonville and Caius College, 

E. S. T. Eev. Edward Stuart Talbot, M.A., 
Warden of Keble College, Oxford. 

C. T. Eev. Charles Taylor, D.D., 

Master of St. John's College, Cambridge. 

E. St. J. T. Eev. Eichard St. John Tyrwhitt, M.A., 

Formerly Student and Ehetorio Reader of Christ Church, 

E. V. Eev. Edmund V enable*, M.A., 

Canon Eesidentiary and Precentor of Lincoln Cathedral. ' 

n. W. Eev. Henry Wace, D.D., 

Prebendary of St. Paul's: Principal of King's College, 
London; Preacher of Lincoln's Inn; Hon. Chaplain 
to the Queen, and Chaplain to the Archbishop of 

M. A. W. Mrs. Humphry Ward. 

F. E. W. Rev. Frederick Edward Warren, B.D., 

Rector of Frenchay ; formerly Fellow of St. John's College, 

H. W. W. Ven. Henry William Watkins, M.A., D.D., 

Archdeacon of Auckland ; Canon of Durham ; Professor of 
Hebrew in Durham University, and Examining Chap- 
lain to the Bishop of Durham. 

E. B. W. Eev. Edward Barnett Wensley, B.A., ; 

Vicar of Hoo-Allhallows, Eochester. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


isnuu. NAMES. 

B. F. W. Eev. Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., 
or W. Canon of Westminster ; Begius Professor of Divinity in 

the University of Cambridge ; Fellow of King's College, 
Cambridge ; formerly Fellow of Trinity College. 

G. "W. The late Eev. George Williams, B.D., 

Vicar of Eingwood ; Hon. Canon of Winchester; formerly 
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. 

H. A. W. The Eev. Henry Austin Wilson, M.A., 

Fellow of St. Mary Magdalen College, Oxford. 

Che. W. Eev. Christophkb Wordswobth, M.A., 

Eector of Glaston, and Prebendary of Lincoln ; formerly 
Fellow of Peterhouse, and Scholar of Trinity College, 

J. W. Eight Eev. John Wordsworth, D.D., 

Bishop of Salisbury; formerly Fellow and Tutor of 
Brasenose College, Oxford ; Bampton Lecturer, 1881. 

W. A. W. William Aldis Wright, Esq., M.A., 
Trinity College, Cambridge. 

E. M. Y. Eev. Edward Mallet Young, M.A., 

Head Master of Sherborne School; formerly Fellow of 
Trinity College, Cambridge. 

H. W. Y. Eev. Henry William Yule, B.C.L., B.D., 

Eector of Shipton-on-Cherwell and Vicar of Hampton Gay. 

Digitized by 


Digitized by 









NAAMANES, a chief of the Scenite Arab*, 
ion of the chief Alamnndaras. His life was 
spared by the emperor Maurice, and he 
eventually became a Christian. (Evag. H. E. vi. 
2, 22.) * [C. H.] 

NAAMATUS, Not. 17, twenty-fifth bishop 
of Vienna, who died A.D. 567 in his 73rd year. 
An ancient metrical account of him is quoted in 
the Gallia Christiana, xvi. 26. [C. H.] 

NAASSENES. [See Ophites.] 

NABOB (1), a saint honoured with St. 
Felix at Milan (Ambros. Ep. 22). He is believed 
to have been martyred there in 304 (Boll. Acta 
SS. 12 Jul. iii. 291 ; Tillem. ii. 79, v. 267). See 
also for this and others of the same name, Alcuin, 
Carm. 104; Gall. Chr. xiii. 709; andD. C. A. 
Nabob. [C. H.] 

NABOB (2), Donatist bishop of Centuriones, 
a place of unknown site in Numidia (Booking, 
Not. Dig. Occ. p. 644), present at the council of 
Cirta A.D. 305. (Opt. i. 14 ; Aug. c. Cresc. iii. 
30.) [H- W. P.] 

NACHLAN, saint. [Nathalan.] 

NAILTBIM, saint in Kidwelly, co. Carmar- 
then, in the time of St. David : in the Latin Life 
of St. David his name is Maitrun (Rees, Camb. 
Brit. SS. 123, 406). [J. G.] 

NAINNLDH (Neskidhts), son of Eochaidh 
of the race of Niall of the nine hostages by 
Ugach Bredmainech, was bishop of Kiltoom, co. 
Westmeath. His feast is Nov. 13 (If. Don.; 
Beeves, S. Adamn. 172-3). There are also Nain- 
nidh of Crnach, April 21, Nainnidh of Cluain 
b-Uinnsenn, June 2, and Nainnidh of Inis Cais, 
Oct. 12 {M. Dan. 107, 143, 275 ; Journ. Boy. 
Hist, and Arch. Assoc. Ir. 4 ser. iii. 47 aq.) 

[J. G.] 

NAITAN, king of the Picts. [Nectar (2).] 


NAMAEA, a, female correspondent of Chry- 
sostom's, who wrote her a playful letter from 
Cncnsus in 405. (Ohrys. Ep. 47.) [E. V.] 

NAMATIUS (1), Oct. 27, ninth bishop of 
Clermont in Auvergne, 446-462. He built the 
cathedral church, the dimensions and architec- 
tural details of which, rather fully given by 
Gregory of Tours, are of considerable interest. 
He was married, and his wife built another 
church in the suburbs in honour of St. Stephen, 
but in course of time it was called after 
St. Eutropius. (Greg. Tur. B. F. ii. 16, 17, 21 ; 
Glor. Mart. cap. 44 ; Savaron, Orig. de Clairm. 
pp. 48, 353, ed. 1662; Gall. Chr. ii. 230; Boll. 
Acta SS. Oct. xii. 254; Tillem. v. 316, xv. 
36, 409.) [S. A. B.] 

NAMATIUS (2) (Namacius), addressed, 
along with his wife Ceraunia, in a consolatory 
letter by Ruricius bishop of Limoges, whose 
son was married to a daughter of Namatius. 
(Rur. lib. ii. epp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 61, in Pat. Lot. 
lviii.; Tillem. xvi. 270; Ceill. i. 608.) [Najj- 
MATius.] [C. H.] 

NAMATIUS (3), nineteenth bishop of 
Orleans, present at the first and second councils 
of Macon in 581 and 585 (Mansi, ix. 936, 957). 
He was sent by king Guntram on an embassy to 
the Bretons, and on his return journey died in 
587 (Greg. Tur. H. F. ix. 18 ; GaU. Chr. viii. 
1415). [C. H.] 

NAMFASIUS, Nov. 21, a hermit of Mar- 
cillac, Aveyron, cir. 800 (Mabill. AA. SS. 0. S. B. 
Saec iii. 2, p. 405 ed. 1734). [C BV) 

NAMMASIUS, an advocate who pleaded the 
canse of the party of Primian against the 
Maximianists before the proconsul of Africa, 
A.D. 394 (voL ii. 475 ; Aug. c. Cresc. iv. 4, S). 

[H. W. P.] 

NAMMATIUS (Namatius), celebrated in 
Gaul for his eloquence, and addressed in 471 by 


Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



Sidonius Apullinaris, who sent him the works of 
Varro and the Chronicle of Eusebius. He may 
hare been the Namatins addressed by Ruricius. 
(Sidon. lib. viii. ep. 6 and note, in Pat. Lai. 
lviii. 593; Ceill. x. 393; Tillem. xvi. 269, 270.) 
[Namatius (1).] [C. H.] 

NAMPHAMO (or Namphahto, Mart. Rom. 
Jul. 4). He with his companions, Lucitas, Myg- 
don or Miggin, and Samae or Saname, were 
apparently the first martyrs who suffered in 
Africa, and therefore, according to Aube, suffered 
nnder the proconsul Saturninus, A.D. 180, who, 
as Tertullian states, first attacked the Christians. 
Namphamo enjoyed the local title of archi- 
martyr. He is only known to ns by the corre- 
spondence between Maximus of Madaura and St. 
Augustine (cf. August. Opp. t. ii., Epp. 16 and 
17). From this correspondence we conclude 
that these martyrs were of Punic blood and not 
Roman colonists. Augustine expounds the name 
Namphamo as a Punic one. See Scilutan 
Martybs for other authorities. [G. T. S.] 

NAMPTJLUS, Numidlan bishop addressed 
by Cyp. Ep. 62, and in synodical letter {Ep. 70) 
of Syn. Carth. de Bap. i. The name is tho- 
roughly African, as evinced by inscriptions. 

[E.W. B.] 

NANNANUS, mentioned by Giraldus Cam- 
brensis as an ancient saint in Connaught, who 
in a plague of fleas expelled the insects from 
the locality " per excommunicationcm et impre- 
cationem suaro." (Girald. Camb. Oemma Eacle- 
siastica, distinct, i. cap. 53, Topographia Hibtrnica, 
dist. it. cap. 31 in Works, ii. 160, r. 119, ed. 
Dimock, 1867.) [J. G.] 


NANNYD LAMDEBE, Irish saint, "vir 
sanctns et vtrtutibus plenus," A.D. 540. 
(Ussher, Brit. Eool. Ant. c 18, wks. vi. 473, 
590.) [Niksidh (I).] [J. G.] 

NANTECHTLDI8 (Nahdechtlms, Nan- 
thtldis, Nantildis), wife of Dagobert I. and 
mother of Clovis II., kings of the Franks. 
Notices of her occur in Fredegarius {Pat. Lot. 
lxxi.) and in the following authorities contained 
in Bouquet, t. iii., Aimoin, Chron. 8. Denys, 
Chron. Afarcianenae, Hermannus Contractus, 
Hucbald's Life of St. Rictrude. She was married 
to Dagobert at Paris in 628, the year he became 
sole king of the Franks, Dagobert deserting 
queen Gomatrudis in the villa Romiliacum 
(Reuilly, now a snburb of Paris) where he had 
married her, and taking Nantechildis, " unam ex 
puellis de ministerio," as Fredegar (p. 635 where 
see note) describes her, or " quandam puellam a 
monasterio raptam," as Aimoin puts it after a 
corrupt reading (Bouq. 127 D and note). Aimoin 
here says Dagobert forsook Gomatrudis on ac- 
count of her sterility. Fredegar (637) blames 
Daeobert's luxuriousness in having three queens, 
Nantechildis, Wlfegundis, Berchildis, besides 
numerous concubines. In 630 her brother 
Landegiselus died and was buried at St. Denys's 
{Chr. 8 Den., Bouq. 292 d). In 633, Dagobert's 
12th year, she became the mother of Clovis II. 
(Fred. 648). She is mentioned in a diploma of 


Dagobert I. in 633 (Breq. num. 261). In 637 
she stood sponsor for Eusebia [Ecsebia (7)3 
daughter of duke Adalbald and Rictrude {Chron. 
Marcianense and Hucbald's Life of Rictrude, 
Bouq. 523 B, 538 B). Early in 638 Nante- 
childis and her son Clovis were committed by 
Dagobert, shortly before his death, to the 
guardianship of his minister Aega or Aeganea 
?Kred. 651 ; Aimoin, Bou. 134 c ; Chr. 8 ZJetu, 
Bon. 298 e). At the accession of Clovis II. to the 
throne of Neustria and Burgundy the govern- 
ment was in the hands of Nantechildis in con- 
junction with Aega as mayor of the palace 
(Fred. 651 ; Aimoin, Chr. 8. Den., Henn., in 
Bouq. 135 D, 301 B, 328 C). The Chr. 8 Den. 
makes Nantechildis then residing at Venete 
(Vannes). In 638 she and Clovis received at 
Compi&gne the Austrasian nobility sent from 
Metz by king Sigebert, headed by Chnnibert 
archbishop of Cologne and the Austrasian. 
mayor Pippin, when by the advice of Aega the 
treasure of Dagobert there stored was divided 
equally between the two brothers Sigebert and 
Clovis, Nantechildis having reserved for her 
one-third of what was amassed by Dagobert 
after his marriage with her (Fred. 655 ; Aimoin 
and Chr. S. Den., Bouq. 136 A B, 801 C). In 
638 she subscribed a diploma of Clovis II. to 
the monastery of St. Maur-des-Fosses (Bouq. iv. 
634 A ; Brequigny, Diplomats, ed. Pardessus, 
vol. ii. num. 291). In 640, after Aega's death, 
she had his son-in-law Ermenfred [Ermenfrb- 
DUS (1)] heavily mulcted for the murder of 
count Aennlph (Fred. 654). The same year, 
according to Brequigny's date, she subscribed a 
praeceptum of Clovis II. to the monastery of St. 
Denys (Breq. num. 294 ; Bouq. iv. 638 A un- 
dated). Her name occurs in a spurious charter 
of Blidegisillus assigned to 640 (Breq. num. 
293). In 641 she accompanied Clovis from 
Orleans to the capital of Burgundy (so the 
passage of Aimoin reads in Bouquet, "Aure- 
lianis caput regni Burgundiae petiit," and 
Fredeg. 658 similarly), where she received the 
bishops and nobility of that kingdom, who came 
to make their submission to her son, with 
marked consideration, appointing Flaucatus, to 
whom she gave her niece Ragneberta in mar- 
riage, mayor of the palace for Burgundy 
(Aimoin and Chr. 8 Den., Bouq. 136 e, 301 e). 
The Chr. 8 Den. here cited places the event at 
Orleans. She died in 641 (Fred. 659), after 
bequeathing many rich legacies to various 
churches, including that of St. Denys {Chr. 8. 
Den., Bouq. 302 a), where she was interred with 
Dagobert. (Aimoin and Chr. S. Den., Bouq. 
137 B, 302 a; Diploma of Landeric, Breq. nam. 
320; Diploma of Clovis IL, Breq. num. 322, and 
Pat. Lot. lxxi. 1198 A.) [C. H.] 

NANTHAEIUS (l) L, seventh abbat of 
St. Bertin, cir. 744-754. In this monastery 
during his rule, Childeric III., the last of the 
Merovingian kings, was immured, A.t>. 752, 
and died the same year (Laplane, Let Abbes de 
Saint-Bertin, i. 29; Gall. Chr. iii. 487). For 
a deed of gift to the monastery during his 
abbacy and dated July 25, 745, see Pat. Lat 
cxxivi. 1187. [S. A B.] 

NANTHAEIUS (2) IL, eleventh abbat of 
St. Bertin, cir. 804-820. In 808 or 809 the 

Digitized by 



emperor Charles sent him and another abbat to 
Britain in company with the papal legate, with 
• view to procure the reinstatement of Eardulph 
the exiled king of the Northumbrians (Einard, 
Amah*, ap. Pertx, Script, i. 195 ; Bouquet, v. 
57, 255, 355> He was probably the abbat 
Nantharins present at the council of Noyon in 
815. (Mansi, xiv. 142 ; Laplane, Lea Abbes de 
Sant-Bertm, i. 43 ; Gall. Chr. iii. 488.) 

[S. A. B.] 

NANTINUS, count of Angouleme, cir. 578, 
who robbed the church, quarrelled with Hera- 
elius the bishop, was excommunicated, and 
perished in an epidemio (Greg. Tur. H. F. v. 37). 

[c. a] 

NABCISSUS (l\ bishop of Jerusalem, at 
the close of the 2nd century. Clinton {Fasti 
Sonant) accepts the date A.D. 190 for the com- 
mencement of his episcopate. He was the 15th 
of the Gentile bishops of Jerusalem, reckoning 
from Marcus A.D. 136, TOrca-cuSunlrip' Sryuv 
Siu&oxh*! and the 30th in succession from the 
Apostles, TpiounxrrV ixb rwv &TooriKar Karri 
ri/r rm i\r\t Ziataxhv (Euseb. H. E. V. 12). 
According to the Synodicon, Narcissus presided 
over a council of 14 bishops of Palestine held 
at Jerusalem A.r>. 198, on the Paschal con- 
troversy, and took part in that held at Caesarea 
on the same subject under the presidency of 
Theophilus, bishop of the city (Labbe, Concil. i. 
600). Eusebius speaks of the synodical letter 
of these bishops as still extant in his time (Euseb. 
Et. E. v. 23). Narcissus occupied a conspicuous 
position in the church of his day, standing forth 
" as one of the more prominent heroes of those 
early times'* (Neale, Patriarch. of Antioch, p. 34). 
A tapii iroWois tlairi rvr Pffrnipivos (Euseb. 
H. E. v. 12). Eusebius records a miracle tra- 
ditionally ascribed to him among many others 
(i-oAAi «tol ft\Xo xajxio'oja), to the effect that one 
Easter Ere, the oil for the lamps required for 
the great illumination usual at that festival 
having failed, and the people being grievously 
disheartened at so unfavourable an omen, Nar- 
cissus commanded the deacons to draw water 
and bring it to him, and after he had prayed 
over it, to pour it, with hearty faith, into the 
lamps, on which it was converted into oil. A 
small portion of this miraculously produced oil, 
Eusebius tells us, was preserved among the 
treasures of the church in his own day (Euseb. 
H. E. vi. 9). The rigid sanctity and holy con- 
sistency of Narcissus raised against him a 
band of slanderers among those who, conscious 
of their own evil life, dreaded conviction and 
punishment. He was accused of some heinous 
crime — probably a sin of imparity — and three 
witnesses came forward to substantiate the 
charge. Finding the people incredulous, they 
imprecated on themselves terrible curses if their 
accusation was not true— one, that he might 
be burnt alive ; another, that he might become 
leprous; the third, that he might be struck 
with blindness. But not even so were they able 
to convince their hearers of the truth of their 
story. Narcissus, however, stung by the 
calumny, and fearing that his influence for 
good would be destroyed by a charge, which 
some would be certainly found to give credence 
to, abdicated his bishopric, and retired to the 
remotest part of the desert, where for several 



years he lived the ascetic life, top QiXiaoQav 
0{ov, which he had long coveted, no one knowing 
the place of his concealment. 

Having been sought for in vain, the neigh- 
bouring bishops declared the see vacant, and 
ordained Dius as his successor [Dius]. Dius was 
succeeded by Germanicus, and he by Gordius. 
During the episcopate of the last named, Nar- 
cissus reappeared, as it were rising from the 
dead, Scnrcp i£ ivafititrtas avacpaytls. Shortly 
after his disappearance the falsity of the charges 
brought against him, Eusebius tells us, had been 
proved by the curses imprecated by the false 
accusers having been fearfully made good. This 
having eventually reached Narcissus's ears pro- 
bably induced him to return to his see, the 
oversight of which he at once resumed at the 
earnest request of all. [Gobdius.] (Euseb. H. E. 
vi. 9, 10.) We are not told what became of 
Gordius. In the second year of Caracalla, a.d. 
212 (Euseb. Chronicon), Alexander, a Cappadocian 
bishop, a confessor in the persecution of Severus, 
visiting the holy city in fulfilment of a vow, 
was selected by the aged prelate as his coadjutor 
and eventual successor. Eusebius records the 
tradition that this was done in obedience to a 
nocturnal vision vouchsafed first to Narcissus 
himself, and afterwards to the leading members 
of the church. Eusebius preserves a fragment 
of a letter written by Alexander to the people of 
Antinous, in which he associates Narcissus with 
himself in beseeching them to be of one mind. 
In this letter he speaks of Narcissus as being 
then in his hundred and sixteenth year, and as 
having virtually retired from his episcopal office. 
[Alexander.] (Euseb. H. E. vi. 11.) Epipha- 
nus states that he survived ten years after 
Alexander became his coadjutor, to the reign of 
Alexander Severus A.D. 222 (Epiph. Hour. lxvi. 20). 
This, however, is very improbable. Nicephorus 
calls him a martyr (ff. E. iv. 19), but the 
authority of the martyrologies, which commemo- 
rate him, October 29th, without any such 
designation, negatives this. (Tillemont, Mem. 
Eeeles. iii. 177 ff.) [E. V.] 

NABCISSUS (2), Mar. 18, bishop and 
martyr. He was born in the East, preached the 
gospel in Bhaetia ; converted S. Afra from a life 
of sin at Augsburg, and then departing to Spain, 
taught there with great success. He suffered 
with his deacon Felix, an African, in the Diocle- 
tian persecution. (AA. SS. Boll. Mar. ii. 621.) 
For other martyrs see Narcissus in D. C. A. 

[G. T. S.] 

NABCISSUS (3), bishop of Neronias(Ireno- 
polis) in Cilida (Le Quien, ii. 898). In and 
about 314 he attended the councils of Ancyra 
and Neocaesarea (Mansi, ii. 534, 549). He was 
of the party of Arras before the council of 
Nicaea in 325 (Athan. De Syn. § 17). He atten- 
ded the council of Nicaea (Mansi, ii. 694, 699, 
818; Theod. JI. E. i. 7) and professed the 
Catholic doctrine (Nicet. Chon. Then. Orth. Fid. 
v. 7). In 332 he was one of the bishops at 
Antioch who put forward Eusebius of Caesarea 
for that see (Euseb. V. C. iii. 62). In 335 he 
must have been one of the eminent Cilician 
bishops at the Jerusalem dedication (Eus. V. C. 
iv. 43). In 341 he was at the dedication council 
of Antioch (Mansi, ii. 1308), and in 342 (Tillem. 
vi 326, 759) was deputed, with bishops Theo- 

B 2 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


dore of Heraclea, Maris of Chalcedon, Marcos of 
Arethusa, from the emperor Constantius to his 
brother Constans (Ath. De Syn. § 25 ; Soc ii. 
18 ; Soz. iii. 10). About the same time he and 
Flacillus bishop of Antioch conducted Eusebius 
Emesenus [Eusebius (35)] to Emesa (Soc. ii. 9). 
In 342 (al. 341) he was one of the Eusebians 
addressed by pope Julius (Ath. Ap. c. Ar. § 20). 
In 343 he formed one of the Eusebian party at 
Philippopolis (Mansi, iii. 140 ; Hilar. Frag. ii. § 7, 
§ 8, § 14 here called of Jeropolis, iii. § 29 here of 
Anapolis, in Pat. Lat. x. 637, 638, 642), and was 
deposed by the council of Sardica (Ath. Hist. Ar. 
§ § 17, 28, Ap. c. Ar. § 36, Ep. ad Epuc. § 7). 
Athanasius, writing cir. 350, calls him one of 
the then prominent Eusebians (Ap. c. Ar. § 48). 
In 351 he was one of the authors of the Sirmian 
creed (Hilar. Frag. vi. § 7 in Pat. Lat. x. 692 ; 
Tillem. vi. 351 ; Hefcl. Covnc. ii. 193). In 356 
(Tillem. vi. 394) he was one of the synod of 
Antioch which ordained George bishop of Alex- 
andria (Soz. ir. 8 and note of Vales. ; Mansi, iii. 
23). Athanasius, writing in 357 or 358, hears 
that Narcissus is charging him with cowardice 
for his flight (Ap. de Fug. § 1 init.), and declares 
(§ 28) that Narcissus has been accused of many 
offences, has been degraded three times by various 
synods, and is the wickedest of all the Eusebian 
party. In 358 Narcissus complains to Constan- 
tius of Basil of Ancyra. (Philostorg. iv. 10 ; 
Tillem. vi. 442.) ' [C. H.] 

NABCISSUS, catholicos of Armenia. [Nor- 

NABDACIUS (Sulp. Sev. ii. 50), a bishop, 
and persecutor of the Friscillianists. 

[M. B. C] 

NABICUS, acolyte of Cyprian, sent by him 
from his retirement with a second relief for 
sufferers by Decian persecution. (Cyp. Ep. vii.) 

[E. W. B.] 

NABSES (1), martyr. [Lazarus (3).] 

NABSES (2) (Barda, Barsa), bishop of 
Edessa, occurs as Narses among the eastern 
'bishops who addressed a letter to the Italians 
and Gauls, a.d. 372 (Basil. Opp. iii. 263, Par. 
1839 ; Ceillier, Attt. Sacr. iv. 446), but is better 
known as Barsa, friend and correspondent of 
St. Basil of Caesarea, who has left two letters 
written to Barsa in a.d. 377 (Basil. Opp. iii. 590, 
599, Epp. nos. 264 or 326, 267 or 327). [J. G.] 

NABSES (3), an adherent of Gratian, for 
whom St. Martin interceded with the successful 
Maximus at the same time that he pleaded for 
the condemned Priscillianists, A.D. 385 [Maxi- 
mus (2)]. (Sulp. Sev. Dial. iii. 11 in Migne's 
Pat. Lat. ix. 218 [Marttnus (1)].) [G. T. S.] 

NARSES (4), priest, syncellus of Euty- 
ches, was called as witness against Eutyches in 
the 6th session of the council at Constantinople, 
Nov. 20, A.D. 448, but there is no account of his 
testimony : the minutes were read at the coun- 
cils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (Binius, Cone. Gen. 
ii. 86; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. x. 672). [J. G.] 

NABSES (5), twenty-fifth catholicus of 
the Chaldaeans (Le Quien, Oriens Christ, ii. 
1116), succeeded Silas but was opposed by 
Elisaeus. The schism continued twelve or fifteen 


years till Narses's death, A.D. 535, when Elisaeua 
also was deposed. (Greg. Barhebr. CAron. ii. 82 
in Assem. B. 0. ii. 409, iii. 166, 614-5.) [J. G.] 

NABSES (6), bishop of Ascalon, commended 
in a poem of Sophronius patriarch of Jerusalem 
(carm. xvii. in Pat. Or. lxxxviL 3801 ; Ceil!. xL 
709). [C.H.] 

NABSES ( 7), the eunuch, sent, in A.D. 551, to 
take the command against the Goths in Italy, 
where he had previously served under Belisarius. 
For a short account of his successes in Italy, see 
Justinianus I., Vol. III. 542, and for a detailed 
account of his career, see Narses, Dictionary of 
Greek and Soman Biography. He took part in 
the ceremony at St. Peter's, when pope Pelagius 
cleared himself of the charge of being implicated 
in the death of his predecessor (Anastas. Vita 
Pelagu). Pelagius subsequently asked him to as- 
sist his legates in their proceedingsagainst certain 
schismatic bishops, and more than once requested 
him to arrest and send the bishops of Milan and 
Aquileia [Paulinus ( ) ] in custody to the 
emperor,and to use force against the other bishops 
of Northern Italy and Istria, who refused to accept 
the fifth general Council. Apparently the only 
consequence of these exhortations was the excom- 
munication of Narses himself, by the schismatics. 
(Pelagii Epp. 1-4, in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxix. 
393-397.) In a.d. 567 he was superseded by 
Longinus in consequence of the complaints of 
the oppressiveness of his administration, and he 
is accused of having, in revenge, invited the 
Lombards into Italy. According to the well- 
known story, the empress Sophia said she would 
charge him with parcelling out the wool for 
spinning to the women of the palace, to which 
Narses replied that he would spin her such a 
thread as would last her her lifetime (Paalus 
Diac ii. 5). At any rate, he retired to Naples, 
from which he was induced in A.D. 568, by the 
entreaties of pope John III. to return with him 
to Rome, where he died soon afterwards (Anastas. 
Vita Joanna III.). [F. D.] 

NABSES (8), patrician, sometimes con- 
founded with the preceding, is addressed in 
several letters by Gregory the Great. The first 
(i. 6) is written immediately after his election, 
which he regrets ; in the second (iv. 32), from 
which it appears that Narses was then in bad 
health, and the third (vi. 14) he refers to the 
case of the priest Joannes (471) ; and in the last 
he also decides that Athanasius, a priest, had 
fallen into Manichaeism, and makes some re- 
marks on the Pelagian heresy. Though a fourth 
letter (vii. 30) is addressed '■ Narsae religioso," 
he appears to be the same as the person to whom 
the other three are written, as a number of per- 
sons to whom Gregory sends salutations in the 
first letter are again mentioned. In this letter 
Gregory endeavours to console him under the mis- 
fortunes and calumnies from which he is suffer- 
ing, and commends to him the deacon Anatolius. 
whom he is sending to Constantinople. He may 
perhaps be the same as the Narses, the famous 
general of the emperor Maurice (Theoph. Sim. v.), 
on whose fall, in A.D. 602, he rebelled against 
Phocas, occupied Edessa, and incited the Persians 
to declare war. Two years afterwards, he sur- 
rendered to one of the generals of Phocas, on 
condition that his life should be spared, but 

Digitized by 



Phocaa, in violation of the promise, burnt him 
alive. (Theophanes, Chrott. 245, 6, in Migne, 
Patr. Graec cviii. 616.) [F. D.] 

NASAD (Nasadh, Nassamus, Nazadius), a 
Briton at Lough Bricren, co. Down, companion 
of St. Bevan and St. Meldan ; he was com- 
memorated Oct. 26. (ifart. Tall. ; Reeves, Eccl. 
Ant. 113,380; Colgan, Acta SS. 90, n. '•; Boll. 
Acta SS. 26 Oct. xi. 893, where is a sylloge 
on the three saints of Lough Bricren, but 
nothing decisive ; lb. 21 Oct. xii. 413, 414.) 


NASARAEI. Under this title Epiphanius 
classes two distinct sects ; one Jewish, the other 
Christian. The Jewish sect is numbered by him 
with the Pharisees, Essencs, and Herodians. He 
calls it the fifth heresy of Judaism. The Chris- 
tian sect is placed by him next after the Cerin- 
thians and before the Ebionites, and is numbered 
the ninth heresy of Christianity. 

Epiphanius spells the names of these sects 
differently. The Jewish he names Ncwapatoi, the 
Christian Nafvpauu. (1) Nasaraei (Nacaoouu) 
then was, according to Epiphanius, a purely 
Jewish heresy. They dwelt in the region across 
the Jordan. They practised circumcision, and 
reverenced the feasts and sabbaths of the Jews. 
They rejected, however, animal food and sacrifices, 
nnd regarded the Pentateuch as a forgery. Epi- 
phanius vindicates the historical accuracy of 
the Pentateuch by pointing to the localities 
where the events there recorded took place; 
Mount Sion, for instance, where Abraham had 
sacrificed the ram; and the oak of Mamre, 
where he had entertained the angels. Mamre, 
indeed, down to the 4th century, continued 
to be a place of pilgrimage at certain times, 
whither Jews, Pagans, and Christians resorted, 
and had a kind of fair, like the great Tara or 
Telltown assemblies among the ancient Irish, or 
the great autumnal meetings at Lyons of the 
ancient Gauls. The abuses of it became so great 
that Constantine abolished it by an edict (Sozom. 
//. E. ii. 4). Epiphanius points out also other 
corroborations of the Pentateuch. The Egyptians 
retained traces and memories of the passover. in 
the red paint which they marked in spring on 
trees and cattle. In the region of the Cardyaei 
relics of the ark were still shown, and he was 
sure the remains of the altar built by Noah 
could be discovered by the diligent enquirer in 
the same region. Philaster, on the contrary, re- 
presents the Nasaraei as quite orthodox about the 
scriptures, but as trusting in the luxuriance of 
their hair for salvation (lib. de Haeres. cap. viii.). 

(2) Nazoraei (Nafapauu). Epiphanius occu- 
pies a large part of his notice of the Christian 
sect with a discussion concerning the descent of 
our Lord from David, and the fulfilment of the 
prophecies involved in Ps. ex. 4 and exxxii. 11. 
His theory is that the Christians were at first 
called Jessaei, from Jesse, the father of David, or 
from the name Jesus, under which name Jessaei, 
he thinks, he discovers mention of them in the 
writings of Philo on the Egyptian Therapeutae. 
Epiph. accepts these writings as authentic, a 
view which some modern critics reject (cf. Sen. 
Archeol. t. xxii. p. 268, t. xxvi. p. 12), regarding 
them as a Montanist or Gnostic production of the 
2nd century. The Christian Nazoraei were the 
followers of those earliest Christian Jews who 


observed the law and believed in Christ. Epi- 
phanius seems not to have been very well ac- 
quainted with them. They were scattered 
throughout Coele-Syria, Decapolis,Pella, whither 
they fled to avoid the destruction of Jerusalem, 
the region beyond the Jordan, and as far east as 
Mesopotamia. He was uncertain as to the view 
they took of Christ's person, whether they re- 
garded him as a mere man or believed in his su- 
pernatural conception. They were well skilled in 
Hebrew, read the Old Testament in thatlangnage, 
and possessed a Hebrew version of St. Matthew ; 
but Epiphanius knew not whether it contained 
the genealogies. They carefully observed cir- 
cumcision and the Sabbath. They were known 
to other writers of that age. Augustine (lib. i. 
Cunt. Cresconium, cap. xxxi.) mentions a Naza- 
rcne sect, by some called Symmachiani, who 
used both Jewish circumcision and Christian 
baptism. Jerome seems to have been better 
acquainted with them than anyone else. Writing 
to Augustine, he tells him that they were uni- 
versally execrated by the Jews under the name 
Misei. When commenting on Matt. xii. he 
gives the renderings of the Gospel which the 
Nazarenes use, which he had lately translated 
out of Hebrew into Greek ; and tells us when 
treating of St. Matthew in his Scriptt. Eccles. 
that this Hebrew version of St. Matthew was 
preserved in the library at Caesarea. (On this 
point see more in Gospels Apocryphal, Vol. II. 
p. 709, and Dr. Salmon's Introd. to the New Teat. 
p. 215.) There were many points of contact 
between this sect and other branches of the 
Ebionite and Gnostic heresies. Epiphanius, in- 
deed, expressly asserts that the Cerinthiana, Naza- 
renes, Ebionites, Sampsaeans and Elcesaeans 
agreed on many points. They seem all to have 
delighted in the same localities — Syria, the 
Hauran, and Mesopotamia. Traces of them 
have been discovered in the Hauran. Wadding- 
ton discovered at Zorava in Trachonitis, a monu- 
ment commemorating a saint, yiopilvn, whom 
the Sampsaeans worshipped. (Voy. Archeolog. 
t. iii. Ins. 2502.) The Nazoraei still exist, 
and under the same name, though they prefer 
in public ''the name Sabians. They now live 
in the marshes of Southern Babylonia, in 
the neighbourhood of Bussorah, where they have 
been visited by several modern travellers. The 
latest accounts of them and their doctrines will 
be found in Petermann, Reisen im Orient, t. ii. 
p. 447 ; Kessler's article in Herzog g.r. Man- 
daer ; an article by the same writer in the new 
Encyclop. Britann. t. xv. p. 467, on the Man- 
daeans; and in Liouffi, Etudes stir la religion dee 
Soubbus, Paris, 1880; cf. also Chwolson's Die 
Sabier. Their doctrines are now practically 
identical with those of the ancient Manicheans 
[Manes]. They retain, however, traces of the 
sacraments in the religious use of bread and wine 
and of baptism. Their sacred books are inter- 
esting relics of Gnosticism. They were pub- 
lished by Norbey in the early part of this 
century, under the title of Codex Nasaraeus. 
A critical edition is much required. See nlso 
Dr. Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament, 
p. 22, for his theory about the Ebionite com- 
munities which were identical with the Naza- 
renes of whom Epiphanius speaks ; cf. also Bishop 
Lightfoot's Qalatians, p. 306. [Nazaraei.] 

[G. T. S.] 

Digitized by 




NASA8, a Sicilian Jew, who in 593 had 
erected an altar in the name of the prophet 
Elijah, and seduced many Christians to worship 
at it. He had also purchased several Christian 
slaves. (Greg. Mag. lib. iii. ind. xi. ep. 88 in Pat. 
Lot. lxxvii. ; Jafle, S. P. num. 878.) [C. H.] 

NATALIA, Dec. 1, wife of the martyr 
Hadrianus, who suffered at Nicomedia in the 
Diocletian persecution (Boll. Acta SS. 8 Sept. 
iii. 209 ; Adon. Mart. Sep. 8). She ministered 
to the martyrs in prison clad in male attire, 
and after their passion departed to Byzantium, 
where she died in peace. [G. T. S.] 

NATALIS (1), OAECILIUS. [Miirocrcs 
Felix, p. 924.] 

NATALIS (»), of OBa (Oea ; Oeensis dvitas 
Offenses Tac. Hist, 4, 50, corrected by Lipsius, 
hod. Trablus, Tripoli), the famous colonia on coast 
near Leptis in Prov. TripoL (mffr. 83. in Syn. 
Carth. sub Cyp. vii.) [E. W. B.] 

NATALIS (8) (NATTAL),abbat of Kilmanagh, 
co. Kilkenny; commemorated July 31. He is 
chiefly known in connection with his pupil St. 
Senan, in whose metrical Life he is called Natal us 
Celebris (Colgan, Acta SS. 170). He belongs to 
the 6th century, but his tradition is undecided 
as to exact date or identity (Lanigan, E. H. Ir. 
i. c 9, § 4 ; O'Hanlon, Ir. SS. i. 450 sq. iii. 222 ; 
Joyce, Ir. Names of Places, 139-40, 3rd ed.). 
Giraldus Cambr. {Top. Bib. dist. ii. c 19) tells 
a curious story of the transformation of a man 
and woman in Ossory into wolves, "per impre- 
cationem sancti cujusdam Natalia scilicet 
abbatis," that is, of Kilmanagh. (Conf. Irish 
Jfeanius, by Todd and Herbert, 204-5.) [J. G.] 

NATALIS (4), bishop of Cesena, 590-614, 
mentioned in 603 by Gregory the Great (lib. xiv. 
ep. 6, in P. L. lxxvii. ; Ughelli, U. 445 ; Cappel- 
letti, ii. 530, 554; Jaffa, 1538). [C. H.] 

NATALIS (S), bishop of Salona, addressed in 
four letters of Gregory the Great (i. 19, 21 ; 
ii. 18, 52), and mentioned in others (i. 20 ; ii. 19, 
20), which chiefly relate to his quarrel with 
HOKOKATDB (28). He was also charged with 
having uncanonically deposed and banished his 
suffragan Florentiub (30), bishop of Epidaurus 
(Epp. iii 8, 9 ; viii. 10). Natalia died about the 
end of A.D. 592 (Epp. iii. 22). [F. D.] 

NATALIS (6), ST., bishop of Milan, c 740. 
(Boll. Ada SS. 13 Mai. iii 241 ; Ugh. ir. 70 ; 
Cappelletti, xi. 133, 302.) [a H.] 

NAT ALIUS, confessor at Rome, at the be- 
ginning of the third century. Our knowledge of 
him is derived from an extract given by Euse- 
bius (H. E. v. 28) from an anonymous 8rd-cen- 
tury work, which we have ascribed to Caius 
(vol. iii. p. 98, 6). The story told is that Natalius 
allowed himself to be persuaded to undertake the 
office of bishop in the heretical sect of which 
THEOPOTT78 the banker was a leader, receiving in 
that capacity a ' salary ' of 150 denarii, monthly ; 
that our Lord did not wish one who had braved 
martyrdom for His sake to perish out of the 
church, and warned him in visions to return ; but 


that when Natalius, blinded by ambition and by 
covetousness, gave no heed to the visions, angels 
were sent who scourged him severely for a whole 
night. Thereupon he rose early, put on sack- 
cloth and ashes, and with strong supplications 
and tears besought Zephyrinus, the bishop, for re- 
storation to communion ; rolling at the feet not 
only of the clergy, but of the laity, and showing 
the weals of the stripes he had received. Thus, 
with creat difficulty, he obtained his pardon. 

[G. S.] 

NATEBAS. [Nathybab.] 

NATHALAN (Naohlan, Nauchlan, Ne- 
thaleuus, Nethelmcs, Nothlah), bp. and 
conf., Scotch saint, whose legend is given at 
Jan. 8 in Bret. Aberd. (Prop. SS. p. hyem. f. 25), 
from which it is translated by Bp. Forbes, Kals. 
417. See O'Hanlon, Ir. SS. i. 128; Dempster, 
H. E. Scot. ii. 504, ascribing to him certain 
writings now lost. He is said to have been born 
in the parish of Tullicht on Deeside, devoted 
himself early and entirely to religion, been made 
bishop in Rome by the pope, and returned to the 
north of Scotland, where he built churches, of 
which he was afterwards the patron. He died 
at Tullicht, a.d. 452, according to King (Bp. 
Forbes, Kals. 141). But it is supposed by Skene 
(Celt. Scot, ii 170) and Bp. Forbes that Nathalan 
is the same as Nechtan abbat of Dun-Geimhin 
or Dungiven, co. Londonderry, who died A.D. 679 
(Ann. Tig.). [J. G.] 

NATHALIA, Aug. 27 (Us.) Jul. 27 (Baron). 
Martyr under the Arabs at Cordova in Spain. 
His relics were found in that country by Usuard 
when he was collecting materials for his mar- 
tyrology. (Ceill. xii. 611.) [G. T. S.] 

NATHANAEL, a solitary of Nitria, whose 
history is told us by Palladius in hit Historia 
Lausiaca, cap. 18 (cf. Migne's Pat. Lot. t. lxxiii. 
col. 1 107). He entered the desert as a monk about 
the year 338, and continued there till his death 
about A.D. 376, some fifteen' years before Palladius 
came to Nitria. Nathanael adopted the anchorite 
life, but, like the rest of the monks, fancied 
that he was specially pursued by a demon. 
Ilis enemy wished to drive him from cell to 
cell. At the beginning of his monastic career, 
the demon rendered him so uncomfortable in 
his first cell that he moved to another. In his 
second cell the devil appeared again to him, 
mocking him, and saying that he would drive 
him from this cell too. Nathanael at once per- 
ceived that he had made a capital mistake in 
yielding a step to his opponent ; so he at once 
returned to his original abode, which he never 
again left for the space of thirty-seven years. 
In fact some of these solitaries never left their 
cells even to receive the Holy Communion. 
Thus Sophronius tells us of St. Mary, an 
Egyptian recluse, who nerer received the Holy 
Communion for forty-seven years, during which 
period she had lived in the Egyptian desert 
(cf. Bingham's Antiquities, lib. xv. cap. v. ; Card. 
Bon. Ser. Litwrg. lib. ii. cap. rviii. n. ii.). 
Nathanael's demon ceased to trouble him for 
the last nine months of his life after he failed 
in the following attempt. He assumed the 
appearance of a young boy of twelve driving 
an ass laden with bread. He caused the ass to 

Digitized by 



fall, towards eventide, just outside Nathaniel's 
cell, whose ears he at once assailed with the 
most lamentable cries for assistance, saying, 
" Father Nathanael, hare pity on me, and stretch 
forth a hand to help." The monk opened his 
door, and surveyed the scene; asked who the 
suppliant was, and was told that he was servant 
to another monk. He urged too that his master 
was celebrating an agape or lore feast, and that 
the next day being the Sabbath, oblations would 
be required, wherefore he asked help to raise 
the fallen load of bread. The boy appealed to 
his compassion also; wild beasts were about, 
and if he left him unassisted, the hyenas will 
devour him. The poor recluse was in a diffi- 
culty. He pondered for a while, reflecting upon 
the various tricks the demon had played upon 
him. Then he said, "Listen, boy, 1 worship 
God, whose rule is over all. If you really want 
help He will send it without causing me to 
break my vow ; and He will not permit hyenas 
or anything else to hurt you. But if you are 
a tempter God will reveal you," and he shut 
his door. Whereupon the demon with a howl 
was resolved into a whirlwind, and Nathanael 
was left to die in peace. [G. T. S.] 

NATHANIEL ( ) (Nathahael), the sixth 
reputed abbat of St, Augustine's, Canterbury 
<Jfon. Angl. L 120; Elmham, ed. Hardwick, 
pp. 4, 184, 199-201 ; Thorn, ap. Twysden, cc. 
1768, 1769, 2232). According to the history of 
St. Augustine's, whether legendary or fictitious, 
Nathaniel was one of the Roman missionaries 
who accompanied Justus and Mellitus to England ; 
was elected abbat by the brethren on the death 
of Petronius in 654, after obtaining a licence of 
election from Ercombert, king of Kent ; he was 
then blessed by archbishop Deusdedit, and held 
his office until the year 667, when he died. The 
exact place of his burial was unknown. Nathaniel 
is not mentioned by Bede, as he probably would 
have been, if he had known of his existence, in 
connexion with the history of Benedict Biscop 
and abbat Adrian. The detailed circumstances 
of the licence and election, probably drawn by 
Elmham from the usage of his own time, are not 
mentioned by the earlier writer. [3.] 

NATHOH AEIMHE (Natuchaoimhe, Nat- 
caeimue, Nacoeuius, Naitchainn, Nath- 
cbeufhe, nathcokecs, mochoema, mochoe- 
jrrus), abbat of Terryglass, co. Tipperary, was 
son of Coemioga of the Dal Messincorb, and 
Caeraell of the Hy Lngair. His feast is May 1, 
and he died A.D. 588. (Ann. Tig. ; M. Doneg. 117 
<t al. ; Four Matt, by O'Don. A.D. 584.) [J. G.] 

NATHI (Nathias, Nathineds, Natuycs, 
Datui, Dathyub, David), surnamed Conrach 
and Crnimther, one of the most famous saints of 
Connaught, yet the details of his life are obscure. 
He is said to have received Achonry, co. Sligo, 
from St. Finnian of Clonard about a.d. 530, to 
have been a contemporary of St. Attracta, and 
to have educated, and perhaps instituted, St. 
Fechin at Fore, but this is doubtful. In the 
Kalendars and old Lives he is always called 
crnimther or priest ; but Ware and later writers 
call him first bishop of Achonry, Luigny, or 
Leyney (Cotton, Fait. iv. 97-8; Gams, Scr. Ep. 
204), a see joined to Killala in the 17th century. 
His feast is Aug. 9, and he flourished in the 


second half of the 6th century. (Colgan, Acta 
SS. 140, 396 ; Lanigan, E. H. Ir. ii. 190 ; iii. 
39 ; Ussher, wks. vi. 538, 600.) [J. G.j 

NATHYBAS (Natoras, Netras), bishop of 
Pharan. He was previously a monk of Sinai 
and a disciple of Silvanus, the superior of the 
Anchorites of Sinai. He exercised greater 
austerities as a bishop than as a monk, on the 
ground of the greater danger of his position. 
(P.osweyd. Vit. Patt. t. 10 ; Coteler. Ecct. Graeo. 
ifunum. i. 579 ; Tillem. JtVin. x. 453, xiv. 191 : 
Le Quien, iii. 748.) [G. T. S.] 

NAUCELION, a person to whomAlypius and 
Augustine wrote A.D. 402 in reply to a state- 
ment made by Clarentius, probably the Donatist 
bishop of Tabraca (Garth. Coll. i. 187), to the 
effect that Felicianus of Mnsti was condemned in 
his absence by the original Donatist party, but, 
having cleared himself from blame, was after- 
wards received by them. To which they replied 
that if he was innocent he ought not to have 
been condemned, but if guilty, he ought not to 
have been received afterwards. Maximinn had 
been condemned at the same time by the Dona- 
tists, yet they did not re-baptize Maximianisls 
who came over to them. (Aug. Ep. 70.) [Felicia- 
nus (4).] [H. W. P.] 

NATJCHLAN, saint. [Nathalax.] 

NAUCRATIUS (1), the brother, next in 
age, of Basil the Great. He was born c 330 A.D., 
and was the only one of the four sons who did 
not take holy orders. According to his brother 
Gregory's account he was equally remarkable for 
mental and physical endowments. His beauty 
of person, strength and agility of body, were 
thrown into the shade by his intellectual gifts 
and eloquence (Greg. Nyss. it Vit. S. Moor. ii. 
182). At the age of two-and-twenty, after having 
given a public proof of his rhetorical powers, 
which had called forth the applause of a crowded 
theatre, under a strong conviction of the vanity 
of all earthly honours and pleasures, he retired 
from the world (0*la nr) *po/ui0(ta), accom- 
panied by a single servant, Chrysaphius, leaving 
all his property behind him, and settled on the 
wooded slope of a hill above the river Iris, three 
days' journey from the monastery of his sister 
Macrina, which was also his mother's abode. Here 
he gathered about him a little handful of sick 
and destitute old men, whom he tended lovingly 
in their sickness, and supported by the produce 
of the chase, of which he was passionately fond. 
He proved himself at the same time a dutiful 
son, fulfilling his mother's desires with a glad 
and ready will. After about five years spent in 
this manner, he and his servant Chrysaphius lost 
their lives by an accident in hunting, c. 357. 
(Greg. Nyssen, Vit. S. ifacrinae, ii. 182-183.) 

[E. V.] 

NAUCBATIU8 (8), addressed by Nilus 
(lib. i. epp. 259-263, in Pat. Gr. lxxix.). [C. H.] 

NATJSTIANUS, bishop of Dumium and 
Braga, and a writer under the Moorish domina- 
tion in Spain, A.D. 790-830. (H. Florez, Espaila 
Sagrada, xv. 170.) [G. T. S.] 

NAVATCS (Novatus), bishop of Sitifa or 
Sitifis, an important town and colony of Maure- 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



tania (Setif), Ant. Jtin. 24. 7 ; Ptol. iv. 2. 24. 
Shaw, 2rat>. p. 52. He was present at the Con- 
ference, A.D. 411, about which time St. Angus- 
tine wrote to him, asking his forgiveness for not 
sending to him at his request his brother, a 
deacon named Lucillus, to serve in the diocese 
of Sitifi, as he was the only one that he had 
who could speak Latin. Navatus appears to 
have attended the council of Carthage, A.D. 
419, and he may have been the same man as one 
of whom we hear in a letter from Augustine to 
Darius, a.d. 429, though Ruinart thinks that 
there were two bishops of Sitifi of the same 
name (Carth. Coll. i. 2. 143 ; Hardonin, Cone. i. 
1249; Aug. Ep. 84, 229; Morcelli, Afr. Chr. 
i.283). [H.W.P.] 

NAVIGIUS, brother of St. Augustine. He 
was one of the party assembled at the country- 
house of Verecundus in 386, and an interlocntor 
in the dialogues held there, Contra Academicos, 
De Ordine, De Beata Vita. He was present at 
Monnica's death at Ostia in 387, on which occa- 
sion his affectionate wish that his mother could 
have died in her own country met with her 
silent reproof. (Aug. Conf. ix. 11; c. Acad. 
lib. i. c. 2, § 5 ; Seat. Fit. cap. i. § 6, ii. §§ 7, 
12, iii. §§ 19, 20 ; Ord. lib. i. cap. 3, § 7.) 

[H. W. P.] 

NAWIAS, a Saracen king at Damascus, who 
dedicated a basilica for his own people there, 
leaving the Christians the church of St. John 
Baptist, according to a work attributed to St. 
Jerome, but belonging to a period not earlier 
than the seventh century. (Hieron. Loc. in 
Act. Apost. in Pat. Lat. xxiii. 1298, 1300; 
Tillem. iii. 634.) [C. H.] 

NAZABAEI. [Nasabael] 

NAZABAEI, a name given by St. Gregory 
Nazianzen to the monks in allusion to the Naza- 
rites of the old dispensation. (Greg. Naz. Carm. 
lib. I. sec. 2, in Migne's Pat. Qraec. t. 37, col. 
745.) [G. T. S.] 

NAZABIUS (1), June 12, a soldier and 
martyr at Rome in the persecution of Diocletian 
with three others (Mart. Horn., Adon. ; Ceill. x. 
527). [G. T. S.] 

NAZABIUS (S), July 28, a martyr, whose 
body was found by St. Ambrose in a garden 
outside the city after the death of the emperor 
Theodosins in 395. He transported the body to 
the Basilica of the Apostles, which was near the 
Roman gate of Milan, and treated it after the 
manner of the bodies of Gervasius and Protasius 
[Gerv ASICS (1)]. Paulinus tells us in his Vita 
Ambrosii, num. 32, which is the primary 
authority for this martyr's history, that he had 
there seen the body uncorrupted, and with hair 
fresh as if buried but a day or two. In the 
works of St. Ambrose (Mignc, P. L. xvii. 715) 
there is a sermon, Serm. Iv., falsely ascribed to 
him, on the natal day of Nazarius and Celsus. 
It is evidently of a later date, as it speaks of his 
martyrdom under Nero, whereas Paulinus tells 
us that no one knew when he suffered. The 
Bollandists have, however, devoted more than 
thirty pages to a recital of his perfectly fabu- 
lous acta (AA. SS. Boll. Jul. vi. 503-534.) 
Paulinus Nol. mentions him, Poem, xxvii., cf. 


Migne, P. L. lxi. 658. Ado, Usuard and Mart. 
Vet. Rom. confound him with another Nazarius, 
and celebrate his memory on June 12. (See 
also Tillem. ii. 75, 86, iv. 255, 586). [G. T. S.] 

NAZABIUS (8), an abbat of Lerins in the 
5th century. He is said to have been a disciple 
of St. Honoratus, afterwards bishop of Aries, and 
may have succeeded Faustus as abbat when the 
latter became bishop of Riez (circ. a.d. 462). 
According to old MSS. of the monastery he de- 
stroyed a shrine of Venus Impudica, situated on a 
little hill on the mainland called Arlucus (Arluc), 
and there founded the nunnery which is believed 
to have flourished till the invasion of the Sara- 
cens, who destroyed Lerins, in the time of St. 
Porcarius (circ A.D. 730). He was succeeded 
by a Eucherius, and was commemorated at 
Lerins, Nov. 18 (Barralis Salerna, Chronoiogia 
LerinensU, ii. 79-80). [S. A. B.Q 

NEACHTAIN (Nectancs), of Cill-Uinchc 
and Fennor on the Boyne, nephew of St. Patrick 
by Liemania, from whom he bore the name Mac- 
Leamhna. By Ussher (Brit. Feci. Ant. vi. 382) 
he is called " Nechtain Episcopus," and Colgan 
follows him (Acta S3. 717-18). His feast is 
May 2. (M. Doneg. ; Four Mast, by O'Don. i. 
414, n. •.) [J. A.3 

NEADIUS (N«S8«w), a monk, addressed 
with others by Nilus (lib. ii. ep. 77 in Pat. Gr. 
lxxix.). [C. H.] 

NEAMUS (Ktatuii) (Niceph. Call. H.E. xviii. 
56 Jin.), bishop of Jerusalem. [Amos;] [C. H.] 

NEABCHUS, a soldier in Armenia, by 
whom St. Polyeuctus was converted c. 251 j 
martyred e. 260 (Boll. Acta SS. 13 Feb. ii. 652, 
22 Apr. iii. 12 ; Tillem. iii. 425, 427). [C. H.] 

NEBBIDIUS (1), husband ofOlympias, the 
celebrated deaconess of Constantinople. At the 
time of his marriage, which Tillemont places 
towards the close of 384 A.D. (Mfmoirei, torn. xi. 
p. 419), he was young, but already high in 
official rank. In 382 and 383 A.D. he was count, 
or intendant of the imperial domain, and in 386- 
A.D. prefect of Constantinople (see for references 
Cod. Theod. torn. vi. p. 874, ed. Gothofred). He 
died within twenty mouths of his marriage 
(Pallad. p. 163), soon after June 29, a.d. 386. 

[E. V.] 

NEBBIDIUS (2), a Roman statesman and 
prefect of Gaul, then of the East, in the later 
part of the 4th century. He married the sister 
of Aelia Flacilla the wife of Theodosius, and 
was well known to Jerome. (Jerome, Ep. 
lxxix. 1, ed. Vail.; Ammianus Marc. xxi. 5, 
xxvi. 7, xxix. 5.) [W. H. F.] 

NEBBIDIUS (3), son of the foregoing, by 
a sister of the empress Flacilla, first wife of 
Theodosins the Great. His father had been an 
intimate friend of St. Jerome — " intima neces- 
situdine copulatus " — (Hieron. Ep. 9). He 
was brought up by his aunt the empress— 
" materterae nutritus sinu " — in his uncle's 
palace — "nutritus in palatio" — as the com- 
panion and fellow pupil of his young cousins, 
the future emperors Honorius and Arcadius— 
" contubernalis et condiscipuslu Augustorum " — 

Digitized by 



" ilsd«m stadiis eruditus " (ft.) — by whom he 
was much beloved. Jerome draws a charming 
picture of the young man's modesty, humility, 
and virginal purity, which never gave the smallest 
ground for scandal, as well as the kind considera- 
tion by which he bound his inferiors to him. 
Nebridius was married at an early age, some- 
where about 390 A.D., by his uncle Theodosius, 
to Salvina, the daughter of the Moorish chief- 
tain, Gildo, count of Africa, who had been 
brought up at the court of Constantinople, 
as a pledge for the loyalty of her father and 
of the province of which he was governor. 
High official dignities were lavished on the 
young man — " honores quae aetatem antcibant " 
— which Jerome says he bore with a humility 
and moderation which seemed to shew that he 
foresaw that he should soon leave them all to 
depart and be with Christ (ft.). He was (pro- 
bably) proconsul of Asia, 396 A.D., and died soon 
afterwards, leaving two children, a boy bearing 
his name — " Nebridius pusio " — and a daughter, 
the darling of her imperial relatives. His loss 
was severely felt, not only in Constantinople, 
where he had been the friend and reliever of 
the destitute and afflicted, but throughout the 
churches of the East, the bishops of which had 
been in the habit of addressing to him their peti- 
tions for cases of suffering in their dioceses, re- 
lying upon his influence with the emperor and 
those in chief authority. Jerome elaborately 
applies to him the character given of Cornelius 
the centurion in Acts x. (Hieron. Ep. 9.) 


NEBRIDIUS (4), an intimate friend of St. 
Augustine, and probably of about the same age 
as he was, described by him as very good and of 
a very cautious disposition. While Augustine 
was at Carthage, and still under the influence of 
Mauichean doctrine, it was partly through his 
influence and that of Vindicianus that he was 
induced, though with some difficulty, to give up 
his belief in astrology, or, as this science was 
then called, mathematics. Nebridius had already 
abandoned Manicheism and delivered lectures 
against the system a.d. 379. (Aug. Conf. iv. 3, 
vii. 2, 6.) When Augustine removed from 
Rome to Milan, and undertook there the office 
of a lecturer in rhetoric, A.D. 384, Nebridius, 
in the fulness of his love for his friend, deter- 
mined to leave his home and his mother, who 
declined to accompany bim, and to take up his 
abode with Augustine and Alypius at Milan, 
** for no other reason," says Augustine, " than 
that he might live with me in most ardent pursuit 
of truth and wisdom. With me he sighed, with 
me he wavered, an eager enquirer after the life of 
happiness, and a most keen examiner of per- 
plexing questions. There we were, three hungry 
mouths, each of us in turn sobbing out to him- 
self hi* tale of destitution, and waiting till 
Thou, O God, shouldest give him meat in due 
season. And in all the bitterness which, in Thy 
mercy, followed us in our secular pursuits, 
while we were striving to discern the purpose 
for which we were made subject to these trials, 
a cloud of darkness would rise up against us, 
and groaning we would turn away and in agony 
exclaim, ' How long is this to last T And as we 
said this we determined not to abandon our 
search, because if we were to let this go, nothing 


certain appeared of which we might take hold. 
(Con/, vi. 7, 10.) 

By and by Nebridius undertook to assist 
Verecundus, who was a teacher of grammar, in 
his lectures, not for the sake of gain, but at the 
earnest request both of himself and of Augus- 
tine. This duty he performed with great care 
and discretion, avoiding opportunities of acquain- 
tance with persons of superior rank in the world, 
in order to secure for himself more complete 
freedom in his inquiries after true wisdom (ft. 
viii. 6). Soon after this Verecundus offered his 
country-house, Cassisiacum agntm, to Augustine 
for himself and his friends to occupy, an offer 
which they accepted with great pleasure and 
advantage to themselves, and for which Augustine 
was deeply grateful [LlCESTlCB]. Nebridius, 
however, did not join the party, and it was 
probably during the time of his friend's sojourn 
there that most of the letters passed between 
them which are preserved in the general col- 
lection. During this time also he appears to 
have taken up the notion of the Docetae, that 
our Lord took human nature not in reality but 
only in outward appearance, an error of which 
in course of time, though we cannot fix the 
date, he was convinced, and soon after the con- 
version of Augustine he died, but not until he 
had become a true Catholic, and had induced 
his household to join him in the change. " He 
is now," says Augustine with confidence, "in 
the bosom of Abraham " (ft. ix. 3, 4). 

Though a much loved and highly valued 
friend, Nebridius was a troublesome corre- 
spondent, for, as Augustine says, being most 
intelligent and persevering in his enquiries, 
which were sometimes very difficult to answer, 
he was not satisfied with brief replies, and did 
not always make sufficient allowance for his 
friend's occupations and want of leisure (Aug. 
Ep. 98, 8). Of the letters which passed between, 
the two friends many are lost, and some never 
reached their destination. Of the twelve which 
remain, two only are addressed by Nebridius to 
Augustine. The rest are by Augustine, who men- 
tions several by Nebridius which he had not re- 
ceived. These replies are very long, and chiefly 
on metaphysical subjects of extreme subtlety, 
and in some cases Nebridius seems to have been 
more anxious to provoke his friend to discourse 
than the latter was to reply, for Augustine 
sometimes manifests a friendly impatience of 
the speculative nature of his questions. Among 
the subjects thus treated are the nature of 
happiness, the difference between memory and 
imagination, and the different provinces of these 
two faculties (Epp. 3, 4, 6, 7, 13), the nature of 
dreams {Epp. 8, 9). Some are concerning the 
Incarnation (Epp. 11, 12, 14). One (14) contains 
an answer by Augustine to a question from 
Nebridius, in which he shews the fallacy com- 
mitted by him in confounding sameness in the 
case of different objects with similarity. At the 
end of this letter he endeavours to reply to 
another question of Nebridius respecting the 
position held by the intellect of the Son of God 
towards those of men, whether it contains in 
itself the elements of human intellect in general, 
or those which belong to each man one by one. 
By way of reply Augustine says, when we think 
of an angle we think of one only, but when we 
think of a quadrangle we think of four angles at 

Digitized by 




once. Each man is created with one intellect, 
but if a nation is created, the intellect is not 
that of one, but of many. Each man is a part of 
the universe; God, the Creator of each part, 
contains in Himself the intellect belonging to 
each part. The first letter from Augustine 
to Nebridius is curious in a literary point of 
view, for in the course of it he asks his friend 
whether the verb fugio makes fugi or fugiri in 
the pass, inf., cupio, cupi or cupiri, and whether 
the i in fugitum, cupitum, and capitum is long or 
short ; a question which, coming from a professor 
of rhetoric, seems to argue either an unsettled 
state of the Latin language at the time, or an 
imperfect degree of grammatical knowledge on 
the part of the provincial professor ; of which 
alternative suppositions, the latter is perhaps 
the true one. [H. W. P.] 

NEBRIDIUS (S), bishop, but his see in Spain 
and his writings are unknown ; he was brother 
of Justinian (4), bishop of Valentin, Elpi- 
dius (17), and Justus (19) in the 6th century : 
he may have been Nebridius bishop of Egara, at 
the 2nd council of Toledo, a.d. 527 (Hefele, 
Cone. ii. 701; Ceillier, Aut. Soar. xi. 265), and 
Cains (Ser. Episc. 13) suggests that he may 
have been translated to Barcelona before A.D. 
540. On Nebridius of Egara see Henschen in 
Boll. Acta SS. 9 Feb. ii. 301. [J. G.] 

NEBBIDIUS (6) (Nehumus, Nifbidius, 
Nimfrldius, NniBBlsius), abbat of Crassa (La 
<3rasse) and afterwards the sixteenth bishop of 
Narbonne, a prominent opponent of Felix of 
Urgel and the Adoptionists [Felix (176)]. In 
799 he was at the council of Urgel (Mansi, xiii. 
1033). In 813 he was the emperor Charles's 
missus dominicus at the sixth council of Aries 
(Mansi, xiv. 57 e), and he can be further traced 
down to 822. {Gall. Chr. vi. 15; Alcuin, Opp. i. 
148, 267, 268 ed. Froben.) [C. H.] 

NECTAN (1) (Nactan, Neachtan, Nectu, 
Netthad), snrnamed Morbet, Morbrec, and 
Horbreac, son of Erip, Irb, &c, and king of the 
Picts, a.d. 455-480 (Innes, Crit. Ess. i. 101 sq.), 
or a.d. 458-482 (Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 32). He 
touches ecclesiastical ground in the legends of 
St. Brioida at Abernethy in Scotland, and of St. 
Boethius of Monasterboice, who is also brought 
to Scotland. In honour of the former he is said 
to have dedicated Abernethy and given it to her 
pupil St. Darlugdacha ; and St. Boethius is 
represented as restoring him to life. (Skene, 
Chron. 6, et al. and Celt. Scot. i. 134-5 ; Innes, 
Crit. Ess. ii. 778-9; Haddan and Stubbs, Coanc 
ii. pt. i. 115-6.) [J. G.] 

NECTAN (8), son of Derelei, king of the 
Picts, succeeded his brother Bridei or Brude, 
who died a.d. 706 (Ann. Tig.), but seems to 
have been driven from the throne and made 
prisoner by Drust about a.d. 725, and again 
restored for a short time on a defeat of Angus, 
son of Fergus, who afterwards reigned, however, 
for about thirty years. He is believed to be the 
Eactain or Echtain, king of the Picts, who was 
clericated A.D. 724 (Ann. Tig.), and the Nechtan 
mac Derile who died a.d. 732 (.Ann. Tig. See 
Skene, CAron. pass.). Though the general events 
and dates of his reign are uncertain, he was the 


centre of a most important movement in the 
Pictish church, which had commenced to feel 
the Roman influence through Northumbrian The 
paschal controversy was at its height, and St. 
Wilfrid had already for half a century secured 
the observance of the Roman Easter to the south 
of the Firth. St. Adamnan had striven in vain 
to procure the like observance in Iona among the 
Dalriadic Scots; but St. Egbert the monk 
(A.D. 716-729) was about to succeed where the 
abbat had failed. Enquiry and discussion must 
thus have been rife among the Picts and Scots 
when Nectan ascended the throne, and was dis- 
posed to adopt the Roman usages. Bede (E. H. 
v. c 21) has preserved an account of his appli- 
cation to Ceolfrid abbat of Jarrow [Ceolfrid], 
for instruction as to the arguments necessary for 
explaining and upholding the new rules for the 
observance of Easter among his people, and for 
the shape of the Roman clerical tonsure ; he also 
wanted architects for the building of a church 
after the manner of the Romans, promising at 
the same time to dedicate it to the honour of St. 
Peter the prince of the apostles, and to have 
himself and his people always following the 
custom of the holy Roman and apostolic church 
"in quantum dumtaxat tamlonge a Romanorum 
loquela et natione segregati hunc ediscere potu- 
issent" (M. H. B. 275). This and Ceolfrid's 
reply 'appear to have been written A.D. 710; 
and Bede's account of the action of Nectan is 
peculiarly striking, when, on receipt of Ceolfrid's 
letter, he had it read and interpreted in the 
assembly of his nobles, and on bended knee gave 
thanks to God for the gift, formally adopted the 
new Easter and tonsure, and took measures for 
the universal reception of the new cycle and 
suppression of the old among his clergy. But 
Bede's account of the harmonious settlement 
under the royal influence must be qualified by 
the statements of the Irish annals, which reveal 
a determined opposition between the Roman 
and the national parties to be put down only 
by the force of royal authority — " expulsio 
familiae Iae trans Dorsum Britannic a Nectano 
rege " (Ann. Tig. A.D. 717). Nectan drove the 
Columban clergy, and those who favoured their 
views, from Pictavia into Scotia, where there 
was still a strong leaning to the old traditions 
[Dunchadh, Faelchu (1)], and thus left the 
Roman party in undisturbed possession (Lanigan, 
E. H. Jr. iii. 158 sq. ; Skene, CAron. pp. clviii. 
74, 354, and Celt. Scot. i. 134 sq. et al.; it 
176 sq. et al. and Fordun, ii. pp. xlviii. sq.; 
Grub, E. H. Scot, i 114 sq. ; Haddan and Stubbs, 
Counc. ii. pt. i. 114 sq.). It is in connection 
with this change that the legend of St. Bonifacius 
Kiritinus, or Queretinus, is interpreted as be- 
longing to the iutroductiou of a Roman mission 
into Pictavia in the time of king Nectan, who is 
said to have been baptized by St. Bonifacius at 
Restennet. (Skene, CAron. 423, and Celt. Scot. ii. 
230.) [Bonifacius Quebetinius.] [J. G.] 

NECTAN (8), ST., the eldest of the children 
of Brechan, king of Brecknock in Wales, i.e. 
one of the Welsh devotees who settled on the 
opposite coast of the Bristol Channel, where his 
relics were preserved at a sanctuary on the 
promontory of Hartland. Githa, Harold's 
mother, founded a college of secular canons here 
in honour of the saint by whose intercession 

Digitized by 



she believed her husband Godwin had been pre- 
served from shipwreck (Freeman's Norman Con- 
quest, ii. 358 ; Kerslake's Damnonia, 415) ; 
' Hertitone ' is called her property in Domesday. 
A notice of his legend is given in Leland's Col- 
lectanea, iv. 153, and in William of Worcester 
(104, 106, 125, 130, 131, 134). He had a sacred 
spring, and the marks of his blood were to be 
seen on the stones. (Whitaker's Catliedral of 
Cornwall, ii. 94, 99.) His day was the 17th 
Jane (Hampson's Kalendarivm, i. 454, bat 
Nicolas's Chronology gives 14th Feb.). The name 
was common among the Picts (Skene's Chron. of 
Piets, p. cii.) and possibly occurs in the Natan- 
leod, or king Nectan, who fell in battle against 
Cerdic, A.D. 508, and whose name survives at 
Netley (Earle's Saxon Chronicle, p. 281); 
Forbes (Kalenaars of Scottish Saints, zvii. 417) 
mentions an Irish saint of the name, whose day 
was 8 Jan. The Welsh saint was commemorated 
at other places in Devon as far as the ancient 
Celtic kingdom of Damnonia extended (Oliver's 
Xonattioon, Exon. 204, 207, 444, 445, 455 ; Kers- 
lake's Damnonia, 415), and at a chapel in St. 
Winnow near Lostwithiel (' Withiel's palace ') 
ia Cornwall. All visitors to Tintagel will re- 
member the romantic chasm whence the water 
falls into the circular basin called St. Nighton's 
Keive (Saxon cyf, a Tat ; keeve is a western 
word still for a brewing tub). [C. W. B.] 

NECTABIA, a deaconess (Soz. iv. 24 fin. ; 
Tfflem. vi 494.) [Elpidios (5).] [C. H.] 

NKCTABJU8 (1), martyr in Anvergne c. 
265(Savaron, Orig. de Clermont, 46; Till. iv. 
474). [C. H.] 

NECTABIUS (8), May 5, bishop of Vienne 
dr. 337-364. (Ado, Chron. in Pat. Lot. cxxiii. 
92 n, 95 u ; Mart Hieron. ; Boll. Acta SS. 5 Mai. 
ii. 9, 1 Aug. i. 51 ; Gall. Chr. xvi. 13 ; Tillem. iii. 
624, xv. 69.) [C. H.] 

KE0TABIU8 (8), a layman of noble birth 
and high official position, to whom Basil ad- 
dressed a consolatory letter on the death of his 
only son, a young man of great promise (£p. 
5 [188]). Basil also addressed a letter on the 
same occasion, in a somewhat turgid rhetorical 
style, to Nectarius's wife, in which he speaks of 
the death of their son as a common blow to the 
provinces of Cappadocia and Cilicia (Ep. 6 [1 89]). 
There fa another letter of Basil's (Ep. 290 [323]), 
addressed to a man of high official rank 
bearing the same name, and perhaps the 
tame person. There was an election of chor- 
episcopi at hand, and Nectarius had evidently 
been writing to urge the claims of a friend 
ef his own. Basil courteously tells him that 
he fa glad to receive testimony regarding 
the candidates from trustworthy sources, but 
that he alone was to be the judge after prayer 
for divine direction, and that no one should urge 
the cause of his friend with unseemly vehemence, 
remembering that the office was a very respon- 
sible one, and that one ought to wish and pray 
not for the success of a friend, but that the 
fittest man might be chosen. Tillemont is in- 
clined to identify Basil's correspondent with the 
future bishop of Constantinople, but without 
sufficient grounds. [E. V.] 

NECTABIUS (4), archbishop of Constan- 



tinople, 9th from the foundation of the see, 
A.D. 381-397 or 398, successor to St. Gregory 
of Nazianzus. During the Second General 
Council (Constantinople, A.D. 381) died St. 
Meletius, bishop of Antioch. Gregory of 
Nazianzns had been persuaded to accept the see 
of Constantinople, partly in hope to heal the 
schism at Antioch through the agreement that 
Paulus, its other orthodox bishop, should be 
universally acknowledged on the death of 
Meletius, or Meletius on the death of Paulus. 
These hopes were now dashed to the ground 
by the election of the presbyter Flavianus in 
succession to Meletius, on the ground that the 
recognition of Paulus would be too great a 
concession to the Latins. Archbishop Gregory 
was so much grieved that he quitted the 
council and the episcopal palace. Many of the 
most influential men urged him not to resign ; 
but his resolution was confirmed on the arrival 
of the Egyptian bishops, who professed them- 
selves unsatisfied with his election, probably 
because he had been preferred to their country- 
man, Maximus. The archbishop appeared one 
day in the council and announced his resig- 
nation, on which he had finally determined for 
the sake of peace. The majority of the synod 
accepted this step, many even gladly. Besides 
the Egyptians there would be amongst his 
opponents those who refused to carry out the 
agreement about the succession at Antioch. 
The Emperor was most unwilling to lose the 
archbishop; but nothing remained except to 
choose a successor. The bishops were quite at 
a loss. Each had a candidate amongst his own 
friends. Who could have thought it was to be 
an unbapt ized layman ? 

The praetor of Constantinople was a senator 
named Nectarius, of noble family, born at 
Tarsus in Cilicia, an elderly man, widely known 
for his admirable character in every relation of 
life, especially for his perfect good temper, the 
excellence of his heart, and his strict integrity. 
It was not generally known that he was still a 
catechumen, and had never been baptized. 

The praetor was at this moment preparing 
for a journey to Tarsus, his own town. Before 
starting he called on the bishop of Tarsus, 
Diodorus, who was attending the council, to 
ask if he could serve him by taking letters 
home. Like others, the bishop's mind was full 
of the election. The reverend appearance and 
gentle manners of his visitor struck him so 
forcibly, that he at once determined that he 
should be his candidate. He said nothing, and 
alleging some other business took the praetor to 
call on the bishop of Antioch. The bishop of 
Antioch laughed at the idea of such a competi- 
tion with the many famous names which had 
been suggested. However he asked Nectarius 
to put off his journey a short time. The day 
came when the emperor Theodosios asked the 
bishops at the council to hand him in their lists 
of candidates, reserving to himself the right of 
choosing one from the whole number of names. 
The bishop of Antioch with the rest gave in his 
list, at the bottom of which he had in com- 
pliment to the bishop of Tarsus written the 
name of the praetor. The emperor, reading 
over the lists, came to the bishop of Antioch's 
paper. He stopped at the name of Nectarius. 
Fixing his eyes on the paper and his finger on 

Digitized by 




the name, he paused awhile in deep thought. 
He began again, and read the list through ; then 
he declared his choice. It was Nectarius. 
The fathers were amazed. Who was this 
Nectarius ? Whence did he come ? What was 
his character ? It began to be said that he was 
not even baptized. Astonishment at the 
emperor's unexpected choice was redoubled. 
Even the bishop of Tarsus seems not to have 
known this disqualification. The startling 
information did not more Theodosius. The 
grumbles gradually ceased. The people of 
Constantinople were delighted at the news. 
The whole council agreed. Nectarius was 
baptized. The dress of a neophyte was changed 
for the robes of the bishop of the imperial city. 
The praetor, a few days ago a catechumen, 
stepped at once to the presidency of the Second 
General Council. He ruled the church upwards 
of sixteen years, and made an admirable prelate. 

The name of Nectarius accordingly heads the 
list of the 150 signatures to the canons of the 
Second General Council. The 3rd Canon de- 
clares that " the bishop of Constantinople shall 
hold the first rank after the bishop of Rome, 
because Constantinople is New Rome." 

The bishops of the west were not disposed to 
accept the election. Synods had been held the 
year of the great Council of Constantinople at 
Aquileia, at Rome, and at other places, and 
letters had been exchanged with the emperors. 
At a synod held in the autumn of A.o. 381 
either at Milan or Aquileia, a letter was 
written to Theodosius which upheld Maximus the 
cynic in his claims to the see of Constantinople, 
repudiating alike Gregory and Nectarius. They 
asked for a common synod of east and west to 
settle the question of the succession. 

In accordance with this request, the emperor 
Theodosius, soon after the close of the Second 
General Council, summoned the bishops of his 
empire to a fresh synod — not, however, as the 
Latins had wished, at Alexandria, but at Con- 
stantinople. He also twice invited St. Gregory, 
the retired archbishop, but he excused himself 
on account of weak health, and said that in his 
opinion such assemblies promised very little 
good. There were assembled here, in the 
beginning of the summer of 382, very nearly 
the same bishops who had been present at the 
Second General Council. On their arrival they 
received a letter from the Synod of Milan, 
inviting them to a great General Council at 
Rome. They replied that they must remain 
where they were, because they had not made 
preparations for so long a journey, and were 
only authorized by their colleagues to act at 
Constantinople. They sent three of their 
number — Syriacus, Eusebius, and l'riscian — with 
a Synodal Letter to pope Damasus, archbishop 
Ambrose, and the other bishops assembled in 
council at Rome. The letter, which is long and 
interesting, is preserved by Theodoret. it is 
sometimes printed in the Acts of the Second 
General Council. At the end of it, the Greek 
Fathers defend, by appealing to a canon of 
Nicaea, the elevation of Nectarius to Constan- 
tinople and of Flavian to Antioch. It has been 
disputed whether this appeal is to the seventh 
canon of Nicaea or to the fourth of Sardica ; 
probability inclines to the former. 

The Roman synod to which this letter was 


addressed was the fifth under Damasus. No 
certain account of its proceedings remains, nor 
does it appear how its members treated the 
question of Nectarius. Theodosius, however, 
sent commissaries to Rome in support of the 
statements of his synod, a fact which we learn 
from the letters of pope Boniface. In his 
fifteenth letter (to the bishops of Illyria) he- 
shews that the church in Rome had finally 
agreed to recognise both Nectarius and Flavian. 
And St. Ambrose, in his sixty-third letter, 
adduces the election of Nectarius as an approval 
of his own by the east. 

The good terms which subsisted between 
Nectarius and his illustrious predecessor are 
clear from six graceful letters which remain in 
the collection of the correspondence of Gregory. 
Iu the first he expresses his hearty good wishes 
for his episcopate. In the second he commends 
to him a certain friend of his named Pancratius, 
whom Nectarius can serve. In the third he 
asks hiin to obtain the interest of the Count 
of the Household for one Georgius who has 
suffered great losses and misfortunes. The 
fourth is about the case of bishop Bosporius, by 
which Gregory obtained from Theodosius a law 
that bishops should only be tried by bishops. 
The fifth commends to Nectarius a young niece 
or cousin who is visiting the capital on business, 
and is unskilled in affairs. The last is of great 
importance, urging him not to be too liberal in 
tolerating the Apollinarians. 

In the first year of the episcopate of Nectarius 
(or 388 ?), Theodosius was away fighting Maxi- 
mus in the west. A false rumour coming to 
Constantinople of the victory of Maximus, the 
Arians burnt the episcopal palace. 

In 383 the capacity of Nectarius was to be 
tried by a third synod at Constantinople. In 
spite of the decrees of bishops and emperor, the 
Arians and Pneumatomachians continued their 
efforts to spread their doctrines. Theodosius 
summoned all parties to the imperial city for a 
great discussion in June, hoping to reconcile all 
differences. Before the proceedings began, he 
sent for the archbishop and told him of hia 
intention that all questions should be fully 
debated. Nectarius returned home, full of pro- 
found anxiety at this communication, and con- 
sulted the Novatian bishop Agelius, who agreed 
with him in doctrine, and was held in high 
esteem on account of his personal piety. 
Agelius felt himself unsuited and unskilled for 
so grave a controversy; but he had a very 
clever reader, Sisinnius, remarkably eloquent, a 
brilliant scholar alike in philosophy and 
theology, and to him he proposed to entrust the 
argument with the Arians. Sisinnius, however, 
thought that the suggested disputation might 
only increase the divisions. He stated his 
opinion before the archbishop, adding that it 
would be better to produce the testimonies of 
the old fathers of the church on the doctrine of 
the Son, and first to ask the heads of the several 
parties whether they accepted these authorities 
or desired to anathematize them. So bold an 
innovation would of course be rejected by the 
people ; but if the sectaries should admit the 
testimonies, it would then be for the orthodox 
to produce their proofs. 

The archbishop unfolded the scheme to the 
emperor, who gladly agreed to it. When the 

Digitized by 



"bishops met, the emperor pat this question: 
Did they respect the teachers who lived before 
the Arian division? They said yes. He then 
asked : Did they acknowledge them sound and 
trustworthy witnesses of the true Christian 
doctrine? The divisions which this question 
produced shewed that the sectaries were bent 
on disputation. The emperor was extremely 
displeased, and he now ordered each party to 
draw up a written confession of its doctrine. 
When this was done, the bishops were summoned 
to the imperial palace, Kectarius and Agelius 
for the orthodox, Demophilus (formerly bishop 
of Constantinople) for the Arians, Eleusius 
of Cyzicus for the Pneumatoroachians, and 
Eunomius for the Anomoeans. The emperor 
received them with kindness, took from 
them their written confessions, and retired into 
a room alone with these documents. After 
praying God for enlightenment, he rejected 
and destroyed all except that of the orthodox, 
because they introduced a division into the Holy 

Of these creeds only that of Eunomius has 
come down. Ue called only the Father God, 
and placed the Son among creatures as the 
First-born of all creation, denying Him all 
share in Divine Being and Glory. The Holy 
Ghost he placed still lower, as created through 
the Son and subject to the Son in everything : 
the greatest, best, and most beautiful creation 
of the Only-begotten. Eunomius threatened his 
opponents with the judgment of God. 

At this resolute conduct of the emperor, the 
sectaries sorrowfully returned home, and tried 
by letters to their adherents to comfort them, 
chiefly as to the fact that so many now went 
ever to the Nicene faith. Many were called, 
they said, but few chosen. The emperor now 
forbade all sectaries, except the Novatians, to 
hold divine service anywhere for the future, to 
publish their doctrines or to ordain clergy, 
tinder threat of severe civil penalties. Gregory 
of Nazianzus wrote two letters about this 
•council, one addressed to the praetorian prefect 
Posthumianus, the other to the consul Satur- 

In 385 died Pulcheria, the emperor's 
daughter. The archbishop, diffident of his own 
rhetorical powers, asked Gregory of Nyssa to 
preach the funeral sermon. In the same year 
Theodosius lost his wife Placilla. Nectarius 
again asked the same celebrated preacher to 
undertake the sad duty. Both orations remain. 
In the latter, Gregory speaks with great respect 
of the primate. 

In 394 a number of bishops were invited 
to Constantinople to the consecration of a 
magnificent church built across the water at a 
place called "The Oaks" by a praetorian 
prefect Rufinua in honour of St. Peter and St. 
Paul. Advantage was taken of their presence 
to hold a synod for settling the affair of 
Agapius and Gebadius, who both had claimed 
the bishopric of Bostra- Gebadius had been 
deposed in his absence by only two bishops. 
Arabianus of Ancyra asked if this was right? 
Kectarius supported the view of Arabianus. 
Another bishop, Theophilus, reminded his 
reverend brothers that both the disputing 
bishops were now dead. For the future, if any 
bishop must be tried, let all the bishops of the 



province be present, and nothing be done in the 
absence of the accused. To this Nectarius, 
Klavianus, and all the others present agreed. 

Towards the close of his episcopate, Nectarius 
abolished the office of presbyter penitentiary, 
whose duty appears to have been to receive 
confessions before communion. His example 
was followed by nearly all other bishops. The 
presbyter penitentiary was added to the eccle- 
siastical roll about the time of the Novatian 
schism, when that party declined to commu- 
nicate with those who had lapsed in the Decian 
persecution. The presbyter penitentiary was a 
public official in each diocese to reconcile 
penitents to the church with greater comfort 
than could be secured by confession before the 
whole multitude of the church. Gradually he 
had fewer of the lapsed to reconcile, and his 
duties became more closely connected with pre- 
paration for communion. An interesting ac- 
count is given by Sozomenus of the penitential 
ceremonies of the church in Rome, which were 
conducted by the bishop himself. At Constan- 
tinople a matron of rank had been confessing to 
the presbyter penitentiary and had been ordered 
by him to fast and to entreat God for forgive- 
ness. She afterwards declared that while she 
was staying in church for this purpose she was 
violated by one of the deacons. Socrates says 
that she confessed to habitual sin on these 
occasions. The whole city was roused to angry 
indignation by the story ; the disgrace of an 
individual was cast upon the whole order. 
Nectarius would do nothing in a hurry. He 
long deliberated, but at any rate expelled the 
offender from the diaconate. A presbyter 
named Eudaemon, a native of Alexandria, and 
others, advised him to leave the participation in 
holy communion entirely to individual con- 
sciences. The archbishop agreed with them, 
and abolished the office of presbyter peni- 

In collections of the Greek fathers a sermon 
is attributed to Nectarius on the subject, " Why 
the memory of the great saint and martyr 
Theodorus is celebrated on the first Sunday in 
Lent; and on fasting and almsgiving." The 
death of TheodoruB happened in the Julian per- 
secution, perhaps as much as thirty-five years be- 
fore Nectarius might be preaching about it. The 
preacher mentions that some of his hearers had 
been eye-witnesses of the scene. The sermon is 
given in Latin in the works of Chrysostom, by 
Surius and Lipomann. In Greek it occurs in 
several manuscript collections. 

There are two letters of St. Basil belonging 
to 358 or 359, addressed to Nectarius and his 
wife on the death of their only son. This Nec- 
tarius is thought by some to have been the arch- 
bishop before his consecration. [NectaBIUS (3).] 

Nectarius died in 397 or 398, and was 
succeeded by St. John Chrysostom. (Theodoret, 
Eccl. Hist, v. viii. &c. ; Socr. Hist. Eccl. v. viii. 
&c. ; Sozom. Hist. Eccl. vii. viii. &c. ; Theoph. 
Chronogr. 59, &c. ; Nectarii Arch. CP. Enarratiu 
in Patrol. Graec. xxxix. p. 1821 ; Mansi, Condi. 
torn. iii. p. 521, 599, 633, 643, 694, &c. ; Hefele, 
Hist. Christ. Councils, tr. Oxenhani, Edinb. 1876, 
vol. ii. p. 344, 347, 378, 380, 382, &c. ; Bonif. 
Pap. Epist. xv. Migne, Patrol. Lat. xx., p. 779 ; 
Ambros. Epist. lxiii. ; Greg. Nyss. Oratio ■» 
funers Pvlch., Oratio Funeb. d» JPlacill. ; Greg. 

Digitized by 




Naz. Epist. Ixxxviii., xcL, cli., clxxxr., clxxxvl., 
ocii. ; Basil. Epist. v. vi.) [W. M. S.] 

NECTARIUS (8), decurion of Calama, a 
pagan though the son of a Christian. (Aug. Ep. 
91. 2.) Notwithstanding the edict of Hono- 
rius, forbidding both pagan and other celebra- 
tions, contrary to the Catholic faith {Cod. Theod. 
xvi. tit. v. 40, 41, a.d. 407), the people of 
Calama celebrated a pagan festival on June 1, 
A.D. 408, and when the procession passed ostenta- 
tiously in front of the door of the church, and 
the clergy endeavoured to prevent this insult, 
the mob broke out into riot and pelted the 
church with stones. This outrage was repeated 
a week later, and again a third time, notwith- 
standing the divine punishment, in Augustine's 
view, of a violent hail-storm. Churches and 
houses were set on fire ; one Christian lost his 
life, and others suffered injuries, being maltreated 
by the mob in their endeavours to discover 
the hiding-place of the bishop, Possidius. The 
disturbance lasted until late at night. The 
whole, says Augustine, might have been pre- 
vented if the magistrates had only done their 
dnty. Hearing of what had taken place, Au- 
gustine went to Calama to enquire, and some of 
the people, alarmed for the consequences of their 
misconduct, came to him and entreated him to 
pardon them. In this petition Nectarius, who 
was absent at the time of Augustine's visit, 
joined, and in a letter to him acknowledged the 
fault of the Calamese, but expressing his own 
love for his native place and his anxiety to leave 
it in a flourishing condition, requested him ns a 
Christian bishop of distinguished eminence, to 
intercede for the people, and prevent severe 
punishment, asserting that the pecuniary loss 
was not great. (Aug. Ep. 90.) Augustine in 
reply speaks in dignified language of the real 
enormity of the outrage, and disclaims any wish 
for severity, but puts the question to Nectarius 
whether for example's sake it ought to remain 
entirely unpunished. In an earlier part of his 
letter he had taken the opportunity of shewing 
how the practice of pagan worship led almost 
necessarily to excess and immorality, and was 
therefore justly suppressed by civil authority, 
that in order for the country to be really pro- 
sperous the people ought to adopt the true reli- 
gion, which he hoped that Nectarius himself 
might be led to do. (Ep. 91.) To this letter, after 
eight months' delay, Nectarius replied. He 
offers to his friend some high-flown compli- 
ments, thanks him for his wish to lead him 
to the heavenly oountry, but must ask him to 
be forgiven for taking a primary interest in 
his own earthly one, for, he says, philosophers 
believe that those who do so will deserve places 
hereafter in the other. He proceeds to en- 
deavour to bespeak the favour of Augustine 
for the Calamese offenders without distinction, 
and to shew that a punishment by fine was 
really worse than death itself, and that if faults, 
as some philosophers think, are all alike, so also 
remission of punishment ought to be extended to 
all alike. He asks him to imagine the probable 
misery of the people, and his own anxiety on 
their behalf, if punishment should be enforced ; 
and entreats him in the name of God and of his 
own high character to shew favour towards them. 
(Ep. 103.) To this letter of ostentatious, though 


long-delayed, intercession, Augustine replied at 
once, expressing in highly polished and courteous 
sarcasm his own opinion concerning the delay, 
asking whether Possidius the bishop of Calama, 
who in his opinion shewed much more real con- 
cern for the people than Nectarius, could in the 
interval make any demand for greater severity 
than at first had been intended, and called on 
him to state publicly whether he had heard any 
report of this being the case. As to the hardship 
of inflicting some pecuniary loss on people who 
have still the means of living luxuriously and 
spending money on embellishments of their 
public worship, those who were parties to the 
injuries inflicted on Christians in the riot ought 
not to complain of being made to pay for the 
damage done, and Nectarius, who has the welfare 
of his native place so strongly at heart, ought 
rather to rejoice at some curtailment of the 
superfluous means which the citizens possess for 
displaying their contempt for the law. With 
a sort of parody Nectarius had spoken of the 
value of repentance in removing guilt, but 
Augustine endeavours to set before him and the 
people of Calama the true nature of Christian 
repentance, with the earnest hope that they may 
be led to see its necessity, and to aim at reaching 
the heavenly country which Nectarius says is the 
aim of all religious systems, but to which there 
is only one true way. The Stoic doctrine that 
all offences are equal, a doctrine which leads to 
the conclusion not only that all are equally par- 
donable, but that all are equally punishable, is 
plainly absurd, and inconsistent both with the 
other Stoic doctrine which excluded mercy from 
the list of virtues, with the more amiable opinion 
of Cicero (pro Ligario, 37, 38), and still more 
with the doctrine of the church, which is really 
more merciful than Nectarius himself. He begs 
him to desist from the line of patronage which 
he has adopted, and to be content with the course 
which the church is pursuing, in the hope of 
ultimately bringing the people to Christ. (Aug. 
Ep. 104; Tillemont, xiii. 172; Flenry, U. E. 
r. 22, 17.) We are not informed distinctly 
as to the result of this controversy, but it is 
certain that in 409 and subsequent years strin- 
gent edicts were issued against opponents of the 
Catholic faith, especially Jews and pagans. (Cod. 
Theod. u. s. 46, 51.) [H. W. P.] 

NECTARIUS (6), perhaps a bishop, to 
whom the Commentary on the Book of Job, attri- 
buted to Philippus, is addressed [Philippus]. 
(Tillem. xii. 351 ; Ceill. vii. 565). [J. G.J 

NECTARIUS (7), believed to be the third 
bishop of Digne (Gassend. Notit. Eccl. Diniats. 
129 ; Oall. Chr. iii. 112 ; Tillem. xv. 65, 68, 84, 
93, 94, 407), whose name appears in various 
Gallic synods and in the letters of pope Leo the 
Great. He was at the councils of Riex in 439, 
and Orange in 441 (Mansi, v. 1196, vi. 441) ; at 
Aries under Ravennius in 451 (vi. 162, 181 ; 
Leo, Epp. 99 al. 76, 102 al. 77) ; at Aries in 455 
(Mansi, vii. 907). In 445 he was deputed by 
Hilary bishop of Aries to Leo (Fit. Mil. § 17 
in Pat. Lot. 1. 1258). In 449 he was one of 
the bishops of the province of Aries who addressed 
Leo on the election of Ravennius (Leo, Ep. 40 al. 
36), and in 450 one of those addressed by Leo 
(Ep. 66 al. 50). [C. H.] 

Digitized by 



NECTARIUS (8), Sept 13, sixteenth bishop 
of Autun, mentioned by Venantius Fortunatus 
in his Life of Germanns of Paris (§ 3 in Pat. Lat. 
Ixixriii. 456), and present at the conncil of Or- 
leans in 547 or 549. (Hansi, ix. 136 ; Gull. Chr. 
it. 343 ; Boll. Acta 88. 13 Sept. iv. 59.) [C. H.] 

NEFRIDIUS, of Narbonne [Nebridiub (6)]. 

NEFYDD (Nevydd) ap Rhun Dremradd 
ap Brychan, Welsh saint in the end of the 5th 
century, was bishop in North Britain, and slain 
by the Picts and Saxons (Rees, W. S3. 145 sq. ; 
Williams, /olo MSS. 519 sq. ; Skene, Celt. Scot. 
L 160, ii. 36). Perhaps has given his name to 
Keveth or Nevay, co. Perth (Bp. Forbes, Kah. 
480). " * [J. G.] 

NEMEBTTUS (1) (Nu^prios), a pnblic 
advocate (fcSuros) addressed by Nilus (lib. ii. 
ep. 210 in Pat. Gr. lxxiz.), in reply to an enquiry 
as to whether the Holy Ghost were to be con- 
sidered as of the same nature as the Father and 
the Son. [C. H.] 

NEMERTIUS (8), a monk who being in much 
fear and despondency is addressed by Kilns (lib. 
ii. epp. 129-132 ; Tillem. xiv. 197). [C. H.] 

NEMERTIUS (3), a silentiarius, exhorted 
by Xilus (lib. ii. epp. 12, 13) to diligence in 
religions duties. [C. H.] 

NKMESIANUS(l), bp.of Thubunae (ToJna). 
Kumidian bp. addressed in Cyp. Ep. 62 (see JaMU- 
asius) A.D. 253, addressed in Cyp. Ep. 70 (Syn. 
Carth. sub Cyp. de Bapt. Haer. 1) Suffr. t. in 
Setdt. Epp. Cone Carth. tab Cyp. de Bapt. 3. 
One of the nine sent to Signs into the mines 
soon after the council (addressed by Cyp. in Ep. 
76, and with three others replying in Ep. 77). 
These nine commemorated as martyrs in the 
African Calendar on 10th Sept. (Morcelli, vol. i. 
p. 226, voL ii. 372 ; Boll. Acta SS. 10 Sept. iii. 
483). [E. W. B. ] 

NEMESIANUS (8), boy martyr in Africa, 
mentioned by Augustine (Serm. 286, § 2 and note, 
in Patr. Lot. xxxviii. 1297 ; Tillem. iv. 174). 


NEMESTNUS (IX (N«M«r««(f), an official at 
court of Jovian at Antioch in 363, when the 
Ariana of Alexandria came to secure his favour 
and the emperor recommended them to subscribe 
the orthodox faith ; " Here are bishops," he said, 
"and here also is Nemesinns" (Athan. Ep. ad 
Jov. $ 4 in Pat. Gr. xxvi. 821 b). Tillemont 
(viii. 223) supposes him a registrar ("un 
gremer **), as though to receive and record their 
subscriptions. [C. H.] 

NEMESINU8 (8), a friend for whom Cyril 
of Alexandria wrote his Dialogue and Thetaurus. 
{Pat. Or. Ixxv. 1, 657 ; Ceillier, viii. 268, 273 j 
Tillem. xiv. 665, 670.) [C. H.J 

NEMESION (1) (Ke/woW), an Egyptian, 
martyred at Alexandria in the reign of Decius, 
by being burnt between two thieves. (Euseb. vi. 
41 ; TOlem. iv. 252.) [C. H.] 

NEMESION (8> elected bishop of Dioolea 



in the province of Scodra in the room of Paulus, 
who had been deposed, but who kept him out 
by force. He appealed in person to Gregory 
the Great, who gave him two letters, a.d. 602, 
in support of his claims, addressed to Constantine 
the metropolitan of Scodra, and to John bishop 
of Prima Justiniana, the representative of the 
Roman see in the East. (Greg. lib. xii. ind. iv. 
epp. 30, 31 ; Jane, B.P. num. 1463, 1464.) 

[C. H.] 

NEMESIUS (1), governor of Cappadocia, a 
friend and correspondent of Gregory Nazianzen. 
He shewed the aged bishop much kindness towards 
the close of his life, which he gratefully records 
in a long poem of between 300 and 400 hexa- 
meters (Carm. 62, torn, ii.pp. 140-146). Nemesius 
was still a pagan, and Gregory devotes the greater 
part of his poem to an exposure of the folly of 
idolatry and exhortations to embrace the elevating 
and purifying doctrines of Christianity. Nemesius 
is described by the grateful Gregory as a man of 
considerable literary eminence, whose eloquence 
as a pleader had gained him distinction in the 
law courts. Cappadocia was his first province, 
and he does not seem to have held it very long, 
as he was once more his own master and was 
setting out on a journey when Gregory wrote to 
him his 184th letter. In a short subsequent 
letter (Ep. 185) Gregory upbraids him for having 
passed by his place of residence without apprising 
him or visiting him. Gregory wrote to Nemesius 
in favour of a certain Tneodosins, who was ex- 
tremely anxious to be relieved from a commission 
involving a long journey and protracted absence 
from his family (Ep. 79) ; and of a kinsman of 
his own named Valentinian, who (though the 
letter is obscure) appears to have had an accident 
by no fault of his own with a public vehicle and 
to have killed the horses, himself being thrown 
out and injured. Gregory begs that Nemesius 
will be content with reprimanding him, and not 
make him pay the price of the horses (Ep. 
183). Nemesius was favourably inclined to 
Christianity. After quitting office he visited 
Gregory for the purpose of discussing the subject 
of religion. His arguments appear to have had 
some influence with Nemesius, and to have in- 
spired the hope that the future interview which 
he promised would result in the convention of 
one to whom he owed so much for the considerate 
kindness manifested towards him (Ep. 184) : 
whether these hopes were verified is not known. 
We may safely reject the suggestion favoured by 
Tillemont (Mem. Eccl. ix. pp. 541, 607) that the 
governor of Cappadocia is the same with the 
bishop of Emesa, the author of a work De natwa 
hominis, the second and third chapters of which 
appear by mistake among the works of Gregory 
Nyssen, under the title De anima (torn. ii. pp. 
157-201 ed. Migne). (Cf. Fabric Jiibl. Graec. 
lib. v. c 14, § vi.) [E. V.] 

NEMESIUS (8) (Ntufotos), various persons 
addressed by Isidore of Pelusium (Patr. Gr. 
lxxviii.); one on Ps. xlix. 20, and Prov. xiii. 16 
(lib. ii. ep. 135, Iv. 39) ; another on the love of 
riches (v. 36) ; a magistrianus on Deut. v. 27 ; 
Matt. vii. 18 : 1 Cor. ii. 14 (iv. 81) ; a praetor 
warned against arrogance and severity (1. 47). 


Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



NEMESIU8 (3), Aug. 1, confessor in the 
Pagus Lisuinus (Usuard. Mart.), thought to be 
Lisieux. (Boll. Acta SS. 1 Aug. i. 46.) 

[C. H.] 

NEMESIUS (4), bishop of Emesa in the 
latter half of the 4th century, of whom no- 
thing is certainly known but that he was the 
author of a rather remarkable treatise, *■«/>! 
ipiatus dvSpcenov, De Natura Hominis, of which 
chapters ii. and iii. appear as a separate work, 
eutitled rtpl tyvxns, de Anima, among the writ- 
ings of Gregory Nyssen, being erroneously 
ascribed to that father. Tillemont and Galland 
are inclined to identify him with the governor 
of Cappadocia, friend of Gregory Nazianzen 
(No. I). But he was certainly a heathen when 
Gregory addressed him, and though (as Galland 
holds, Bibl. I'atr. torn, vii.) it is not impossible 
that he may have subsequently become a convert 
to Christianity and have attained the episcopate, 
it is hardly probable, and there is not the least 
evidence in favour of such an hypothesis, which 
is decidedly rejected by Fabrici us (BiW.Graec. viii. 
448 ; and Tillemont, M€m. Ecclis. ix. 541, 607). 
Le Quien (Or. Christ, ii. 839) places Nemesius 
fifth among the bishops of Emesa, between 
Paul I., who attended the council of Seleucia, 
a.d. 359, and Cyrincus, the friend of Chrysostom. 
Cave throws unfounded suspicion on the fact of 
his having been bishop of Emesa, and says that all 
is uncertain about him (Hist. Lit. i. 276). The 
date of his writing may however be determined 
with tolerable certainty by his mentioning the 
doctrines of Apollinaris and Eunomius and 
the Origenists, but not those of Nestorius, 
Eutyches, or Pclagius. The last named he could 
hardly have avoided mentioning if his teaching 
had been known to him, in the portion of his 
treatise relating to free will. That he was 
bishop of Emesa is stated in the title of his 
treatise in the various MS. copies, and by 
Maximui (ii. 153, ed. Combefis) and Anastasius 
Sinaita (Quaest. xviii. and xxiv.) in their quota- 
tions from his work. He is also quoted, though 
without his name, by Joannes Damascenus, Elias 
Cretensis, Meletius, Joannes Grammaticus, and 
others. The treatise of Nemesius is a pleasing 
and interesting little work, which will well 
reward perusal, and has received much praise 
from able judges of style and matter. Brucker 
(flirt. Crit. Philosoph. iii. 530) writes of it thus : 
".Si lectionis varietas, verborum delectus, ratio- 
num pondus, judicii tenor, mcthodi ordo, dis- 
pntandi acumen, argumenti demum dignitas 
tractatnm aliquem lectoribus suis conciliare 
poterit, utique hie fuerit longe commcndatUsi- 
mu»." Nemesius establishes the immortality of 
the soul against the philosophers, vindicates 
free will, opposes fatalism, defends God's provi- 
dence, and proves by copious examples the wisdom 
and goodness of the Deity. As a natural philo- 
sopher Nemesius has obtained celebrity by 
indications given in his book that he was not 
ignorant of the circulation of the blood and the 
functions of the bile (cc. xxiv. xxviii. pp. 242, 
260, ed. Matthaei).' The book was first published 
in a Latin translation by G. Valla, Lugd. 1538. 
The first edition of the Greek text was by Nica- 
sius Ellebodius, Antv. 1565. It also appeared 
in the Auctarium Duceanum, Paris, 1629, ii. 
466 ; and in the Bibl. Patrum, Morell. xii. 748 ; 


also in the Bibl. Vett. Pair, of De la Bigne, 
1609, torn. viii. in the Mayn. Bibl. 1618, torn. v. 
pars 3, and 1654, torn. xii. ; and the Maxima 
Bibl. 1677, torn. viii. It was published at 
Oxford, 1671, with copious notes, by Dr. (after- 
wards Bp.) Fell. The best edition is that by C. F. 
Mathaei, Halae, 1802. Nemesius's treatise has 
been translated into most modern European 
languages, into Italian by Pizzimcnti (no date), 
English, G. Wilkes, 1636 and 1657, German by 
Osterhammer, Salzburg, 1819, and French by 
Thibault (J. R.), Paru, 1844. [E. V.] 

KEMESSIANUS (Ne^eo-«-/ovoj)» * "cholasti- 
cus addressed by Isidore of Pelusium (lib. iii. ep. 
339 in Pat. Or. lxxviii.), censuring the too ex- 
clusive application of the Old Testament to 
Christ. [C. H.j 

NENNITA, mother of St. David of Menevia 
(O'Hanlon, Ir. SS. iii. 6). [Nonna.] [J. G.] 

NENNIUS, British historian, presents a 
study akin to that of Gildas, alike in the indeci- 
sive results but unlike in the breadth of histo- 
rical enquiry and traditionary material. Nennius 
is uniformly spoken of as author of the Eutogium 
Britarmiae she Historia Britonum, but this is 
ascribed to others besides Nennius. Unless as 
author, compiler, or editor of this work, he has 
uo existence, and this ascription of authorship 
rests upon a late and doubtful basis, yet for con- 
venience and from long-established usage he will 
probably continue to be quoted simply as the 
author. At the same time, to quote Stevenson 
(Nennius, p. v.) : " The information which is ex- 
tant concerning Nennius, the presumed author 
of the work entitled ' Historia Britonum,' is so 
scanty, and the literary history of that produc- 
tion, external and internal, is so obscure and 
contradictory, that we may despair of being able 
to decide, with any degree of accuracy, either as 
to the age, the historical value, or the author- 
ship of this composition." It will be most con- 
venient to consider (a) The work itself, (b) The 
authorship, (c) The time, (d) The editions. 

(a) The Historia Britonum, contained in at 
least thirty-three MSS., which date from the 
10th to the 17th century, and presenting great 
variety in matter, arrangement, and dates, pro- 
fesses to give a history of Britain to the arrival 
of the Saxons. It gives the usual Celtic tradi- 
tions in a confused form, traces the Britons to 
Brutus, the Scots to the immigration under the 
Spaniard Partholomaeus, and ends with the 
foundation of the kingdom of North umbria. 
A.D. 547, or its establishment on Penda's defeat 
and death in the year 655. It is of no special 
historical value, and is of even less interest than 
the Historia et Epistola Gildac, to which it bears 
a certain relation, as well as to the Historia 
Britonum Galfredi Moncmutensis. 

(b) If we accept the two prologues as genuine 
and conclusive, we must believe that Nennius 
was disciple of Elbodus (d. a.d. 809), and under 
a priest Beulanus whom he styles master, and 
to whom he inscribes a copy of his work with 
some verses to his son Samuel ; that he was 
member of some religious community, compiled 
his history " seniorum jussu," and finished it in 
the year 858, being the twenty-fourth vear of 
Mervin king of the Britons ; and that he 

Digitized by 



gathered his materials from the traditions, 
writings, and monuments of the ancient British 
inhabitants, from the Roman annals, from the 
chronicles of the holy fathers Jerome, Prosper, 
and Euscbius, and from the histories of the Scots 
and Saxons. But both prologues are of late and 
very doubtful authority, being not older than 
the 12th century, and therefore usually held as 
spurious, while the date 858 cannot synchronise 
with the twenty-fourth year of Mervyn, which 
would probably be 843. If a later writer was 
only embodying an earlier tradition with regard 
to the authorship, we could understand the 
anachronism through ignorance, but not feel 
otherwise supported by the authority. But the 
weight of earlier tradition is to attribute the 
Historia Britonum to Gildas without mention of 
Nennius, and Stevenson (lb. liii.) says : " It is 
an important fact, that one of the earliest manu- 
scripts, if not the earliest, extant, ascribes it 
neither to Nennius nor to Gildas, but to one 
whom it styles Mark the Hermit." This Mark 
was an Irish bishop who became an anchorite at 
St. Medard's at Soissons about A.D. 870. The real 
author is thus unknown ; but Nennius, if more 
than a name, probably lived in the first half of 
the 9th century. The works ascribed to Nennius 
as the monk of Bangor in the 6th or 7th cen- 
tury are evidently either feigned, or, if they ever 
existed, spurious and based upon the Hist. Brit. 
(For lists see Balaeus, Brit. Script. Sum. f. 36 ; 
Pitseus, DelU. Angl. Script, i. 106; Cave, hist. 
Lib. ii. 217 ; Tanner, Bibi. 542 ; Wright, B. B. 
Lit. 135 A.-S. per. ; Nicolson, Eng. Hist. Libr. 
33, 3rded.) 

(c) The date assigned to Nennius, when con- 
sidered as the author of the Historia Britmum, 
has varied from A.D. 620 (Gait,' Praef. ad Led.) 
to 858 (Prol. i.), and even as late as 946, the 
5th year of Eadmund king of the Angles 
(M. H. B. 53 n.> The cause of this is the diffi- 
cult question of the chronology of the work 
itself, and hence that of its composition. There 
appears to be no room for doubt, amid the end- 
less corruptions and interpolations of the extant 
manuscripts, that it is a compilation which dates 
from the 7th or beginning of the 8th century, if 
not even a century earlier, in the time of Gildas, 
and has received additions at the hands of un- 
known authors, whose work can be but guessed 
at in the attempt to disentangle the original 
form from the later recensions. But the editor 
of Mom. Hist. Brit. (Introd. Rem. Chron. p. 107 
sq.) traces five editions (a.d. 674, 823, 858, 907, 
977), distinguishable by their chronology ; while 
Dr. Skene (Four An. B. Wales, i. 37 sq. and 
Chron. xxiv. sq.) supposes a Welsh original 
translated into Latin, and prints separately the 
Saxon and Welsh Additions to the Hist. Britonum, 
a.d. 974 (Chron. 11), and the Irish and Pictish 
Additions, a.d. 1040-72 (lb. 23). The Irish 
version of Nennius, Hist. Brit., is a translation 
made by Gilla Caemhain (d. a.d. 1072), into 
which he has introduced many purely Irish 
matters without apology for interpolation. (See 
this version published by Ir. Arch. Society, 1848, 
with translation and notes by Todd and Herbert; 
0*Corry, Ir. MS. Mat.) 

(d) Editions of Nennius, Hist. Brit., are by Gale 
(Hist. Brit. Script, xv. 1691); Gunn (Nennius, 
Hist. Brit., with English version and notes, 1819); 
Stevenson (Nennii Hist. Brit. 1838); Giles 




(Hist. Ane. Brit. ii. 1847) ; and Mon. Hist. Brit. 
1848 (Bed. Brit, sine Hist. Brit. auct. Nennio), 
and under the name of Marcus Anachoreta, by 
Cardinal Mai, App. ad Opera, pp. 99-111. 
Dr. Giles has translated Nennius, and followed 
Gunn's Latin (Bohn, Six Old Eng. Chron.). 

(See on Nennius, Gale's Nennius, Pref. ad Lect. ; 
Stevenson, Nenn. Pref. ; Man. Hist. Brit. Pref. 
and Introd. ; Irish Nennius, by Todd and Herbert ; 
Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 185 sq., A.S. period ; 
Gunn, Nenn. Pref. ; Hardy, Descript. Cat. i. pt. i. 
318-37, pt. it 852 ; Lappenberg, Engl, under 
A.-S. Kings, ed. Thorpe ; Herzog, ReaUEncykl. 
I. 261.) [J. G.] 

NENNOOA, ST. (Ninnoca, Nenooc), 
daughter of king Brechan, migrated to Brittany, 
and founded the nunnery of Lan Ninnok, in 6th 
century. Her day was 4th June. (Acta Sanctorum, 
June, i. 407 to 411 ; Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 
83, 86 ; Proceed, of Boy. Irish Acad. vii. 373.) 

[C. W. B.] 

NEO, ofSeleucia. [Neosas.] 

NEO (1) (Neon), Jan. 17, martyr at Langres. 

(2) A child martyr, c. 257 (Baron, ann. 259, 
xv. xvii. ; Tillem. iv. 29, 33, 34). 

(8) A martyr at Aegae. [Claudius (4).] 
(Baron, anu. 285, iv. ; Tillem. iv. 414 ; Ceill. ii. 
465, 466.) [C. H.] 

NEO (4), bishop of Laranda, in Lycaonia, 
probably at the beginning of the 3rd century, 
permitted the layman Euelpis to preach in his 
presence. His example is cited as a precedent 
by Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of 
Caesarea to justify their having given similar 
permission to Origen (Enseb. H. E. vi. 19). 

[G. S.] 

NEO (6), a Pamphylian bishop, an antagonist 
of the Messalian heresy at the end of the 4th or 
beginning of the 5th century. (Phot. Cod. 35 ; 
Ceill. viii. 572 ; Tillem. xii. 432.) [G. T. S.] 

NEOM (Neon, Neonas), archbishop of. 
Ravenna, received from pope Leo (Ep. 135) a 
reply upon the case of those who had been carried 
into captivity and did not know about -their 
baptism in infancy (Migne, Pat. Lot. t. liv. 1191 ; 
Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. x. 8). As a contemporary 
of St. Leo (A.D. 440-461), he was later than A.D. 
425-430 as given by Agnellus (Pont. Ep. Eav. 
ap. Migne, Pat. Lat. t. cvi. 451, 764), and pro- 
bably succeeded Petrus Chrysologus in A.D. 454 
[Chkysoloocs], which would allow the letter to 
be in the year 458 as given by Ceillier (76.) and 
Fleury (H. E. xxix. 11), but Gams (Ser. Episc. 
717) gives A.D. 449-452. He built the church 
of St. Peter the Great, and founded one called 
Tricolis, but in Agnellus, Vita S. Neonis (Migne, 
Pat. Lat. t. cvi. 517) there is no history of 
him: he died 11 Feb., and was buried in the 
church of St. Peter. [J. G.] 

NEONAS (Neo), bishop of Selencia in 
Isauria at the time of the synod of 359, when 
he allowed his church for the ordination ol 


Digitized by 




Anianus to the see of Antioch. At the close of 
the year he signed the letter of the deputies of 
the synod of Seleucia to those of Rimini (Hilar. 
Fraj. x. in Pat. Lot. x. 705). In 360 he was 
deposed by the Acacian synod of Constantinople. 
(Soc. ii. 42; Soz. iv. 24; Le Quien, ii. 10U ; 
CeiU. iv. 578 ; Tillem. vi. ill, 486, 493.) 

[C. H.] 

NEOPHYTUS (1), a martyr at Nicaea, aged 
fifteen, under Diocletian (BolL Acta SS. 20 Jan. 
ii. 297 ; Tillem. t. 159). [C. H.] 

NEOPHYTUS (8) (N«#>uros) a monk upon 
whom Nilus (lib. hi. ep. 301 in Pal. Or. lxxix.) 
urges that the very least precepts ought not to 
be disregarded [C. H.] 

NEOPLATONISM. This profound and 
most remarkable system of philosophy took its 
rise in Alexandria, in the person of Ammonias 
Saccas, about the beginning of the 3rd cen- 
tury A.D. Its most celebrated master, and by 
far the most powerful of all those whose 
treatises have come down to us, was Plotinus, 
the pupil of Ammonius Saccas. Next to bim in 
reputation comes the last great master of the 
school, Proclus, in whose time philosophy had 
receded from all other places where it had once 
flourished, and taken refuge in its first cradle 
and most congenial home— Athens; in which 
place, more than forty years after the death of 
Proclus, the philosophic schools were at last 
auppressed by the zealously orthodox Justinian, 
a.d. 529. Between Plotinus and Proclus lie Por- 
phyry and Jamblichus, some of whose treatises 
have come down to us ; Amelius, of whom we 
possess only fragments ; the celebrated and un- 
fortunate Hypatia ; the emperor Julian, with 
his friends and advisers, Sallustius, Aedesius, 
Maximus, Chrysanthius ; the estimable and in- 
telligent Hierocles ; and Syrianus, the master of 
Proclus. The duration of the school in its 
: separate identity was thus about three centuries 
and a quarter, though individual Neoplatonists 
are found even in the latter half of the 6th 
century A.D. 

What is the central character of Keoplatonism ? 
It is known as a philosophy, as a Platonic philo- 
sophy. And, indeed, it does in great part con- 
sist, and especially in the pages of Plotinus, of 
that penetrating research into first principles, 
into our own nature, bodily and spiritual, and 
the nature of the universe around us, and that 
attempt at systematic exposition, which is what 
we understand by philosophy. But mingled 
with this is another element. Keoplatonism 
seeks not merely to give men clear knowledge, 
but also to make them enter into a certain high 
state of feeling, not without kinship to religious 
emotion, a state which Plotinus himself termed 
" ecstasy " (fmrrairo), and of which no better 
description can be given than that contained in 
the final and culminating words of his great 
treatise : " Such is the life of the gods ; such 
also is the life of divine and happy men ; detach- 
ment from all things here below, disdain of 
earthly pleasures, the flight of the soul towards 
God, on whom it gazes face to face and alone." 

Now, in so far as Neoplatonism is pure theory, 
its origin can be traced with very fair, though 
not absolute, certainty. It is a kind of summing 
up of the results of all previous Greek and 


Roman metaphysics ; it would be too much to 
say, of all previous philosophy ; for natural 
science and political philosophy are alike left out 
of its range, the former, doubtless, by reason of 
the defectiveness of the school in accurate ex- 
ternal observation, the latter from the circum- 
stances of the time. But in metaphysics there 
is scarcely any preceding theory (unless the 
Epicurean atomic theory be considered an excep- 
tion) to which Neoplatonism is not in some way 
or other affiliated ; in particular it sought with 
great diligence to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, 
though always preserving the supremacy of the 
former. Nor was it content with inquiring into 
the Greek and Roman systems. It is generally- 
conceded that the principal philosophers of the 
school knew and were influenced by the works of 
Philo ; and there is reason to think that a still 
wider influence, foreign to Greece and Rome, 
extended to them. As to this point, indeed, 
there is no agreement among critics. Vacherot 
boldly says that the Alexandrian philosophy is 
"essentially and radically oriental." This is 
one of those broad assertions which is seldom 
left in peaceful possession of the field of inquiry ; 
and Zeiler, in criticising it, goes so far to the 
other extreme as to consider all the element* 
which contributed to form Neoplatonism, apart 
from the recognised classical sources, of insignifi- 
cant weight. It is, he thinks, quite in the normal 
line of development of Platonic, Aristotelian, 
and Stoic thought (Zeiler, Die Philosophie der 
Griechm, vol. v. p. 394). This is a conclusion 
which, in the judgment of the present writer, 
cannot stand; though Zeller's great learning, 
and the care which he has bestowed on this 
question in particular, entitle his opinion to most 
respectful consideration. It may be conceded 
that Vacherot goes too far when he affirms that 
Neoplatonism teaches a theory of the emanation 
of all things from the Deity manifestly derived 
from some oriental source. The question is not 
one of technical language, and any conclusion 
about it based merely upon some one specific 
doctrine, such as that of emanation, is neces- 
sarily unsatisfactory. When, however, we 
consider the entire tone and character of Neo- 
platonism, it is perfectly impossible to consider 
that it merely continues the line of which 
Stoicism was the immediately preceding link. 

In fact, in so far as Neoplatonism was derived 
from Greek sources, it was not, in its main bias, 
the natural development of any then existing 
philosophy, but was a retrocession, as its name 
implies, to the original Platonic philosophy ; a 
retrocession, however, in which, while many 
elements are omitted, others, and especially the 
religious side, are pressed with a force, a fervour, 
and a comprehensiveness excelling anything that 
we find in Plato himself. We hare then to in- 
quire why the Alexandrian philosophers were 
thrown back for their principles to the first 
seminal ground of all Greek ethical philosophy ; 
why they were forced out of the natural de- 
velopments of their own age ; and why, being so 
forced back, they resumed the original Platonic 
impulse so exclusively in the religious line, and 
resumed it in this line with such force and en- 

It must be observed that Zeiler himself lays 
great stress on this religious side of Neoplaton- 
ism, and he attributes it partly to the example 

Digitized by 



ef Stoicism, partly to the general spirit of the 
time : " a time," he says, " in which the nations 
had lost their independence, the popular religions 
their power, the national forms of culture their 
peculiar stamp, in part, if not wholly ; in which 
the supports of life on its material, as well as on 
its spiritual side, had been broken asunder, and 
the great civilised nations of the world were 
impressed with the consciousness of their own 
downfall, and with the prophetic sense of the 
approach of a new era ; a time in which the 
longing after a new and more satisfying form of 
spiritual being, a fellowship that should embrace 
all Ipeoples, a form of belief that should bear 
men oTer all the misery of the present, and 
tranquillise the desires of the soul, was uni- 
versal " {Die Philosophic der Qriechen, vol. v. 
pp. 391-2). It has already been intimated that 
the narrow, stern, practical religion of Stoicism 
cannot rightly be held to be the parent of the 
enthusiastic, idealistic religion of Plotinus, And 
with respect to what Zeller says of the general 
spirit of the age, it is true, no doubt, that there 
was a general feeling of depression, unrest, and 
dissatisfaction in the world at this time ; it is not 
true that the remedy was by any means univer- 
sally looked for in religion, still less in such a 
religion as Plotinus taught. For instance, no 
one, perhaps, expressed the sense of dissatisfac- 
tion and depression here referred to so powerfully 
as the great critic Longinus at the close of his 
treatise "On the Sublime ;" but Longinus, not- 
withstanding hit intimate friendship with the 
leading Neoplatonists, had not imbibed their 
spirit ; and accordingly we find that he looked 
for the restoration of his age and the removal of 
its ills, not through the means of a religious 
revival, but by a return to the ancient repub- 
licanism of Athens. Not only did he entertain 
this opinion theoretically, but he endeavoured to 
realise it practically under Zenobia at Palmyra, 
an attempt which led to his own death, a heroic 
martyr to an ideal of less permanent value than 
in his enthusiasm he believed. It is needless 
to say that many had recourse to less worthy 
remedies, in the way of superstition and magic, 
or of keen and cold satire, as in the case of 
Locian. But if we want to find any religious 
spirit in that age strong enough and broad enough 
to be considered as in any way the actuating 
source of Neoplatonism, we shall find it in 
Christianity alone. 

And it is to Christianity that Vacherot wonld 
seem naturally to refer (though whether he 
intended the reference is uncertain) in the 
following passage, which goes to the heart of 
the matter : " It is known by authentic testi- 
mony that Platonism was, of all Greek doctrines, 
the one which obtained least success in the 
Museum [of Alexandria]. When Ammonius 
appeared, the schools of the Museum had fallen 
into the most miserable impotence ; no sign of 
life, no symptom of change announced that a 
new philosophy would arise there. The impulse 
came from without. It was the spectacle of the 
great religious schools of the East in contrast 
with the pitiable state of Greek philosophy ; it 
was, above all, the inspiration of a new spirit 
that aronsed the Neoplatonism of Alexandria. 
Far from being its origin and guiding principle, 
one can scarcely say that the Museum was even 
the cradle of Neoplatonism " (vol. i. p. 341). Of 



the " great religious schools of the East," which 
Vacherot here mentions, it is undeniable that 
Christianity was by far the most powerful, by 
far the most likely to have influenced Neopla- 
tonism.* And when we find that Ammonius, the 
founder of Neoplatonism, was born a Christian ; 
when we remember the great mutual intercourse 
between Christian theologians and heathen 
Platonists at Alexandria, and find that men of 
such power as Origen and Clement were deeply 
influenced by Platonism, and could hardly have 
been so influenced without exercising a reciprocal 
influence in return; when we find Amelius, the 
pupil of Plotinus, speaking in highly respectful 
terms of the doctrine contained in the opening 
verses of the fourth gospel, it is hardly pos- 
sible to avoid the conclusion that the influence 
here indicated was a real and effective one. But 
we must be careful not to mistake its nature. 
How far Ammonius or Plotinus borrowed doc- 
trinal elements from Christianity is uncertain. 
To the present writer it seems probable that the 
character of the Supreme Deity in the Neo- 
platonic system, the emphatic unity attributed 
to him, and the fatherly relation in which he is 
said to stand towards men, were suggested — cer- 
tain that they were strongly promoted — by the 
kindred elements in Christianity. No one surely 
can doubt that the strong religious bias in the 
philosophy of Fichte (a philosophy so much 
resembling that of Plotinus) was due to Chris- 
tianity ; though Fichte, like Plotinus, appears to 
seek to found religion on a system of intellectual 
abstraction which, in truth, it is not easy to re- 
concile with religious feeling. 

Still, as has been said, the amount of direct 
borrowing which took place on the part of the 
Neoplatonists from Christian doctrine is an un- 
certain point. The belief that the trinity of the 
Neoplatonists was derived from the Christian 
doctrine of that name, though assumed by 
Cousin, is an unsafe supposition. It is the in- 
direct influence of Christianity on Neoplatonism 
which is so important, and which has hitherto 
been too little noticed. The nature of this 
influence is indicated precisely by Vacherot in 
the passage above quoted. The philosophers 
were kindled by a sense of rivalry ; they felt, 
present in the world and actually working, a 
power such as they themselves sought to exer- 
cise, moralising and ordering the hearts of 
men ; and this stirred them to find a parallel 
power on their own side, and the nearest ap- 
proach to it, both in character and degree, was 
found in Plato. To Plato they attached them- 
selves with the fervour of pupils towards an 
almost unerring master ; but they selected from 
Plato those elements which lay on the same 
line as that Christian teaching whose power 
elicited their rivalry. 

At all events, this seems by far the most 

• It has been suggested that Buddhism may have 
been an originating cause of Neoplatonism. But the 
similarities between the two Bystems are rather super- 
ficial than deep : Buddhism, while far more fall of moral 
teaching, Is far less hopeful and enthusiastic than 
Neoplatonism. And India was too remote from the 
Roman world to be able to affect it with any powerful 
Impulse, though the Hindoo systems were not unknown 
in It: they were, however, objects rather of curiosity 
than of knowledge. 

c a 

Digitized by 




probable account of the religious bias of Neo- 
platonism, and of the way in which that 
religions bias overflowed into theoretical philo- 
sophy. It is impossible quite certainly to know 
the whole truth about influences in so remote a 
past, which must often hare been so apt from 
their nature to be buried in secrecy. But 
alternative accounts of the matter do not easily 
suggest themselves. Though, for instance, we 
might attribute something to the personality of 
Ammonias or of Plotinus in themselves, some 
power parallel to that which was exerted by the 
heroic life and death of Socrates ; yet, were this 
an influence of sufficient force to create by itself 
a philosophy such as Neoplatonism, it could 
hardly have helped leaving a mark on history of 
a kind that we do not now find there. It is to 
be observed, as an indication that the Alexandrian 
philosophers were not altogether likely them- 
selves to be able to penetrate into the roots of 
their own teaching, that, with all their reverence 
for Plato, the true significance of the personality 
of Socrates was in a singular degree ignored by 
them ; the great master of Plato is to them 
nothing more than Plato's dramatic mouthpiece. 

In Plotinus, we find Neoplatonism at its very 
best. It is a system which, in his hands, is far 
from deserving the disparagement with which it 
is sometimes mentioned. It is a most unjust 
accusation against Plotinus to affirm, or imply, 
that he preferred obscurity for obscurity's sake. 
A system that deals strenuously with first prin- 
ciples is not often (to judge by the philosophies 
that have hitherto appeared in the world) easy 
reading : but it may be questioned if Plotinus, 
when the true key to his meaning is found, is so 
difficult as Plato. The comparison is seldom 
fairly made ; the incidental advantages of Plato 
are so many, in his exquisite dramatic art, in the 
historical interest which surrounds his person- 
ages, in the familiar light which the researches 
of many generations have shed upon his principal 
theories, that questions respecting the real 
meaning of his philosophy are apt to be regarded 
as in a more subordinate position than is possible 
in the case of a writer who, like Plotinus, has 
nothing bat his philosophy to depend upon. 
However this may be, the sincerity and intellec- 
tual energy of Plotinus are not to be questioned ; 
and it is impossible, in any account of Neopla- 
tonism, not to give some statement, however 
brief, of his philosophical position. 

God, the highest principle of the universe, is, 
according to Plotinus, known to us through 
self-reflection ; not indeed through every kind of 
self-reflection, but through such alone as shews 
to us the dignity of the spiritual part of our 
nature as compared with external things. When 
we know and feel our own worth in respect of 
our soul, the spontaneous reflection is forced 
upon us — What is that universal soul which 
breathes life not only into ourselves, but into all 
nature, penetrating through all regions of earth, 
sea, and sky ? But next, says Plotinus, when 
we through our own soul have attained to a 
right eBteem and reverence for the universal 
soul, the next necessary thought is this — What 
is that mind and intelligence by which the 
universal soul receives and preserves its own 
divine life-giving power? And the last and 
highest step is this — What is that first single 
cause, that absolute unity and goodness, from 


which, in the Divine nature, even mind and 
intelligence have their birth? These are the 
three constituent elements in the Divine nature, 
as regarded by Plotinus : — first, absolute unity 
and goodness ; secondly, mind or intelligence ; 
thirdly, the life-breathing soul. The whole 
universe is set in motion, and receives its power 
from the Divine Being, each member in the 
hierarchy of existences receiving strength from 
those above it. (See especially the beginning of 
the 5th Ennead, and for what follows, the 4th 
and 5th books of the 3rd, and the 3rd and 4th 
books of the 4th Ennead.) Between God, or 
the absolute First Cause, and man, intervene, 
first, the high heavenly powers, which, on their 
spiritual side, come nearest to the pure Divinity, 
and on their material side are known to us as the 
starry constellations ; and next, the powers (not 
very satisfactorily defined by Plotinus) which 
have a superhuman nature, but yet are in part 
mixed with sensuous elements. There can be 
little doubt that Plotinus was led to include these 
superhuman or demonic powers in his system 
through a leaning to the popular heathen 
religion, which, however, would not have pre- 
vailed with him if it had not been for the great 
example of Plato. After the demonic powers 
comes man; lower again than man are the 
brutes ; till true or spiritual existence dwindles 
into feebleness, and at last vanishes in the realm 
of mere earthy matter. All spirit, and the 
human soul among other spirits, is, according to 
Plotinus, essentially immortal ; but it may rise 
or fall in the scale of existent beings in propor- 
tion to its own excellence. Moreover, in every 
link of this great chain, the higher is perpetually 
giving strength to the lower, and raising it to its 
own level ; and the highest state to which any 
being can attain is that intimate union with the 
supreme God, in which thought and sense are 
alike swallowed up in a spiritual state more noble 
than either — a state which Plotinus designated 
by the name of ecstasy. To this state Plotinus 
did not think that man could attain, except 
transiently and occasionally, while he remained 
in this fleshly life. 

Perhaps, even from so brief and imperfect s> 
sketch as the above, it may be seen that the phi- 
losophy of Plotinus was one of remarkable power 
and symmetry. More than that ; though it can- 
not be said to be quite free from fanciful ele- 
ments, there is a real soberness in the mind of 
its author; the difficulties connected with the 
divine self-subsistence and universality, in relation 
to the individuality of men, though they cannot 
be said to be solved, are presented in a manner 
to which little objection can be taken intel- 
lectually, and against which no serious charge 
of irreverence can be brought. Again, though 
Plotinus was deeply penetrated with the sense of 
the inferiority of material things to spiritual, he 
did not allow this sense to blind him to the 
beauty of the world even on its material aide, as 
is powerfully shewn in his criticism of the 
Gnostic theories {Ennead. ii. 9). 

It must be said, however, that Plotinus wss 
by no means so strong on the practical side of 
his philosophy as he was on the theoretical side. 
In the inculcation of practical conduct he is as 
inferior to the Stoics as he is superior to them 
in enthusiasm and in theoretical completeness. 
His relation to them was very similar to the 

Digitized by 



rtUtion of Origen to Augustine, and of the Greek 
mind to the Roman mind generally. His practical 
defects reach their climax when he comes to the 
central point of his whole system, the " ecstasy," 
or onion of the soul with God. When once the 
possibility of such a state is granted, the question, 
how to attain it, becomes of transcendent import- 
sice. But into this question Plotinus never 
esters with any seriousness. He tells us, indeed, 
that we are to retire into ourselves, into the 
silence of our own hearts. But when this is said, 
other considerations imperatively press for an 
answer: How is such a retirement into ourselves 
to be distinguished from indolence and vanity ? 
How is it related to our conduct in external 
matters ? Is it to be considered an intercourse 
with God, and if so, is it the same as prayer ? 
For prayer is not unrecognised in his system, 
though his treatment of this subject too is of 
the slightest and most theoretical kind. Is it a 
daty to cultivate this " ecstasy " directly, or is 
it a reward that comes to us in the fulfilment 
of our duty? Practical questions of this sort 
are ignored by Plotinus ; and yet the vivifying 
power of his whole system depends on their 
answer. And the fact is, that while far from 
say conscious purpose of undervaluing morality, 
he yet regards the whole material scene in which 
we are cast as so low a region, as to think that 
car conduct in that region needs scarcely any 
detailed or careful scrutiny from a philosopher. 
The guidance of feeling, when questions of con- 
duct are put aside, necessarily assumes a bare and 
abstract form ; and bare and abstract the ethical 
teaching of Plotinus undeniably is. Here it was 
that Neoplatonism, even at its very best, was 
so vitally inferior to Christianity. It is in the 
pound of daily practical life that the most sub- 
lime spiritual excellence has its root ; this the 
Neoplatonists never knew; of this Christianity as 
a whole has never been ignorant. 

Perhaps, indeed, the inferior minds among 
the Neoplatonic philosophers had more discern- 
ment of this truth than Plotinus himself, though 
in the most celebrated of them, such as Porphyry 
and Jamblichus, the discernment of it was not 
merely partial, but distorted by an unworthy 
bias. The practical morality of Neoplatonism, 
after the death of Plotinus, tended more and 
wore to centre itself in the polemical advocacy 
of the pagan worship. Nor can there be any 
mistake as to the reason why this was the case. 
If it were possible to doubt that the nobler 
elements of Neoplatonism were kindled by a 
desire to emulate Christianity, it would still 
not be possible to entertain a similar doubt with 
respect to this, its worst side. The alliance of 
paganism with the Neoplatonic philosophy cul- 
minated, as is well known, in the time and in 
the person of Julian. It is wholly out of the 
question to suppose that the extraordinary 
development of ceremonialism which Julian 
introduced for the honour of Jupiter and Apollo 
was occasioned by any sudden access of genuine 
fervour for those deities, or in fact was the 
result of anything but a resolution to outshine 
Christianity in religious enthusiasm. Nor is 
this merely a deduction from the general nature 
of the case: it is supported by remarkable 
specific points, both as exhibited by Julian him- 
self and by other more philosophic minds. We 
know that Julian ardently desired, not merely 



philosophic insight, but supernatural power; 
this led him to take for his ally and counsellor 
that arrogant dealer in m igical arts, Maximus, 
rather than advisers who professed nothing more 
than the teaching of wisdom. (See Art. Maximus 
of Ephesus.) Long before Julian, the attempt 
to bring the supernatural into close connection 
with the daily life of man appears in well- 
known writings of Neoplatonist philosophers; 
in the lives of Pythagoras by Porphyry and 
Jamblichus respectively, to which should be 
added the life of Apollonius of Tyana by Phi- 
lostratus (for though Philostratus is rather 
known as a Pythagorean than as a Neoplatonist 
philosopher, the two schools were closely con- 
nected. See Art. on Apollonius of Tyaha). 
In all these biographies are found two elements, 
never seen in Greek or Roman philosophy till 
Christianity became a power that forced itself on 
the attention of men : first, the setting up of 
some individual philosopher, not merely as a 
teacher however great, but as divinely inspired 
and exercising command over men by super- 
natural influence ; and secondly, the attribution 
to such philosopher of miraculous powers. No 
tenable account has ever been given of such bio- 
graphies as those here referred to, except that 
which regards them as composed with the pur- 
pose (conscious or unconscious) of intimating, 
that heathenism could equal Christianity iu 
points in which Christians appealed to the 
popular mind with a force which no mere ex- 
hibition of reasoning powers could pretend to 
equal. Nor did the tendency here spoken of ever 
leave Neoplatonism ; we find it in the biography 
of Jamblichus by Eunapius ; in the life of Proclus 
by Marinus. 

But though an unworthy rivalry was the 
original incentive to such representations as those 
just noticed, and also to the excessive ceremo- 
nialism of Julian, it would be incorrect to sup- 
pose that the Neoplatonic philosophy was putting 
any severe or unnatural strain on itself in taking 
into its system elements such as these. The 
teaching of Plato himself was so rich in sympa- 
thetic power, that it allied itself naturally to 
cravings of the popular mind which colder rea- 
soners despise, such as the desire for religious 
association and for ceremonial worship. Thus 
when Neoplatonism proceeded to press these 
points on the notice of men, and to treat them 
as an integral part of its own theory, it had 
plenty of sanction in its inherited doctrines for 
such a course, though the immediate impulse 
came from an external quarter. The following 
passage from Vacherot puts the natural affinities 
of Neoplatonism for mystic ceremonial religion 
very strikingly, though it must not be taken as 
exhibiting the whole case. 

" The Alexandrian philosophy soon allowed 
itself to be drawn into extravagance and super- 
stition. . . We of this age can scarcely com- 
prehend how a philosophical school could lend 
itself seriously to such a part. But our surprise 
is due to our judgment of oriental philosophy 
being framed on the lines of the modern spirit. 
That philosophy bridged over the gulf which 
separates the world of sense from the world of 
intellectual truth by an innumerable multitude 
of powers of every nature and rank, and sup- 
posed an intercourse more or less intimate to 
exist between man and these powers. Why then 

Digitized by 




should it not have accepted, with the necessary 
reserves, the belief in the gods ? Was it so dif- 
ficult for it to see in the apparition of a God the 
communication with such or such a power ? The 
soul of man, in the teaching of the Alexandrians, 
is distinct but not separate from the divinity ; 
it touches the divinity on all sides of its nature. 
It possesses the faculties which enable it to 
communicate with the divine in every degree of 
the intervening scale. By ecstasy, it unites 
with the supreme God ; by pure thought it en- 
ters into relations with the world of intellectual 
truth ; by the soul and the imagination, it has 
communion with deities, genii, heroes and all 
the intermediate powers which transmit life and 
light to the natural world. What then is there 
surprising in the fact that the philosopher sacri- 
fices, invokes or evokes supernatural powers at 
his need, just as the priest does ? . . . . The 
creed of the Alexandrians bases itself on the 
identity of religious belief with philosophic doc- 
trine. ... Its extravagances and superstitions 
have their origin entirely in the philosophy 
itself." (Translated from Vacherot, vol. ii. 
pp. 147-9.) 

True it is, as Vacherot here states, that the 
Neoplatonic philosophy was invoked to aid, and 
naturally did aid, the Neoplatonic theurgy, with 
its splendid ritual and its vaunted miracles. 
But it is going too far to say, as Vacherot does, 
that the philosophy was the parent of the 
theurgy and the ritual. The tokens are not 
those of true parentage. The philosophy had 
subtle affinities for the ritual ; but those affini- 
ties would not have been brought into active 
manifestation had not a grosser and more power- 
ful motive come into play. And that motive 
was, the desire to maintain the imperial supre- 
macy of Rome on the spiritual as well as on 
the material side, and the consequent jealousy 
of Christianity, and attempts to rival the pecu- 
liar power which Christianity exerted. It is 
impossible of course not to treat this aspect of 
Neoplatonism (which is remarkably absent from 
Plotinus) as one much to be regretted. 

It would, indeed, be unjust to judge of the whole 
series of Neoplatonic philosophers after Plotinus 
by these points of their practice. They have 
this merit, that they preserved the good elements 
of philosophy, as well as its lapses ; its free 
spirit of inquiry, its tolerance, the sense of duty 
and reverence for the past inspired by it. Yet, 
if they preserved much of this, they added 
nothing ; the whole substance of Neoplatonism is 
contained in Plotinus, and in Plotinus alone. 
The additions and expansions of Jamblichus, and 
the much more elaborate ones of Proclus, con- 
tain no new element; if they are not purely 
arbitrary, they rest at all events on quite super- 
ficial grounds. It may be suspected, as Zeller 
suggests, that a religious motive, namely a 
desire to introduce some stronger support for 
polytheism than any which Plotinus had given, 
was what induced Proclus to frame in his philo- 
sophy the hypothesis of the independent unities, 
which are subordinate to the supreme unity. 

But if Neoplatonism had no fresh developments 
(in the true sense of that word) after Plotinus, 
it had an important history ; and it is necessary 
briefly to sketch the leading elements of this, 
and the characteristics of the chief members of 
the sohool. Porphyry (about a.d. 233 to A.D. 


305), the ablest pupil of Plotinus, was the first 
in whom the bios of antagonism to Christianity 
appeared, and the philosopher in whom of all 
others it appeared most keenly. It is indeed in 
this relation that Porphyry is chiefly known ; 
and though we cannot tell what effect his attack 
on Christianity had in the way of actually pro- 
moting ^the cause of paganism, the manner in 
which he is mentioned by the Christian fathers 
proves that his treatise Against the Christians 
possessed more than ordinary learning and 
acuteness. The treatise itself, however, does 
not survive, and what we know of it is mainly 
derived from the references made by Jerome and 
Eusebius. We may infer from what Augustine- 
tells us (0e Civ. Dei, xix. 23. 2) that Porphyry 
would not have been unwilling to set Christ on 
a level with such a philosopher as his own hero, 
Pythagoras; this is in the ordinary eclectic 
manner which prevailed so largely at that epoch, 
both in philosophy and religion. In respect of 
his own philosophy, Porphyry is rather to be 
considered as the populariser of Plotinus; not 
that he was equal to his master in comprehen- 
siveness or real soberness (as of course he fell far 
short of him in originality); but he had the 
advantage in clearness of style, and he knew 
what ordinary men would understand. When 
he expresses his own feelings of religion and 
duty, as in the epistle to his wife Marcella, he 
does it not without dignity and simplicity. 

It is a descent from Porphyry to his pupil 
Jamblichus; for in Jamblichus we first find 
definitely that admixture of the crudities of the 
pagan religion with philosophic research of which 
so much mention has been made above. The 
extraordinary reputation of Jamblichus in his 
own and succeeding ages, is not justified by any 
of his extant writings ; but where so much has 
been lost, it would be nnfair to insist too much 
on the weakness of that which has been pre- 

But it is in the emperor Julian (a.d. 331 to 
A.D.-363) and his philosophic friends that Neo- 
platonism goes down to its nadir. The, in many 
respects, strong and admirable character of Ju- 
lian cannot disguise from any one the fact that 
he lent an enthusiastic aid to n religious system 
of the most contemptible kind; and that his 
philosophy shared in many respects the faults of 
that religion. 

When paganism was finally overthrown, and 
incapable of developing on any large scale into 
that system of theurgic, mystic, and magical 
rites in which Julian delighted, there is a 
certain revival of excellence among the philo- 
sophers of the Neoplatonic school. This is most 
pleasingly shewn in Hierocles, who lived in the 
first part of the fifth century, and whose adher- 
ence to the pagan religion is supposed, with some 
reason, to have subjected him to persecution. 
But, to judge from his extant writings, the 
paganism of Hierocles had in it very little of 
superstition or even of excessive ceremonial ; his 
religious doctrines are of an extremely pure 
character, and his morality is of that benevolent, 
self-sacrificing, yet not ascetic type which we are 
accustomed to think of as the natural product 
of Christianity. 

Of a different spirit was Proclus (slightly 
later than Hierocles, a.d. 412 to a.d. 485), though 
he too appears to have suffered for his adherence 

Digitized by 



to paganism (less severely, however, than Hiero- 
cles). Of all the Neoplatonic school Proclus was 
the greatest and most persevering systematiser, 
the writer most determined to let no element 
drop which his predecessors had insisted on. If 
those elements had been universally trustworthy, 
such systematisation could still not have been 
satisfactory without the most penetrating insight. 
But when it is remembered that the Neoplatonic 
system had before his time been subjected not 
merely to arbitrary philosophical accretions, bat 
also mixed and entangled with the follies of a 
decaying religion, the task which Proclos set 
himself may well be thought a hopeless one. 
Nevertheless, modern critics have not spoken 
unfavourably of Proclus ; though no one has 
been found to second the bold opinion of Cousin, 
that in Proclus all the rays of ancient philo- 
sophy, from Orpheus to Zeno and Plotinus, are 
concentrated and re-emitted. But that Proclus 
was a laborious and conscientious student there 
can be no doubt; as also that the asceticism 
which he practised (though like the monastic 
asceticism it does not meet the approval of the 
present age) was the proof of a sincere and self- 
denying spirit. He closes the line of important 
Neoplatonic philosophers; of Simplicius and 
Olympiodorus it will suffice to mention the 
names. Nevertheless, a last ray of the philo- 
sophy lingered in the celebrated and unfortunate 
Boethius ; whose undeserved death, noble char- 
acter, and touching treatise De Consolation*, 
form a not uninteresting or unworthy close to 
a philosophy of mixed though striking character. 
Though almost all the names connected with 
the Neoplatonic philosophy are heathen, and 
though the philosophy itself was turned into 
one of the great bulwarks of falling paganism, 
the names of Boethius, and long before him, of 
Proaeresins (the instructor of Eunapius) are pro- 
bable exceptions; that of Synesius, the well- 
known bishop of Cyrene, a certain exception. 

The connexion of Ncoplatonism with Chris- 
tianity may be summed up in the following way. 
About the beginning of the third century, an- 
cient philosophy was kindled into new and sudden 
life in Alexandria, through influencesofwhich it is 
reasonable to believe that Christianity was an im- 
portant part ; and was thus led to strike backwards 
into regions which had been long ago left behind, 
the original Platonic channel, which of all an- 
cient philosophies had most of that freshness 
and enthusiasm, that feeling after a higher 
world, which the heathen saw among Christians. 
For some time, Christianity and Platonism went 
side by side in peace. It might have been hoped 
that with men like Clement and Origen on the 
one side, and Ammonius and Plotinus on the 
other, religion and philosophy might have been 
reconciled and coalesced. But that did not 
happen; on both sides a recession took place; 
and philosophy became the bitter rival and op- 
ponent, with more and more deepening anta- 
gonism, of the rising religion. The crisis took 
place in Julian's time ; it ended in the thorough 
defeat of philosophy, which had attached itself 
to paganism. After that time philosophy, 
though not without writers worthy of esteem, 
has no fresh or original spring ; and it at last 
succumbs without a struggle, partly to arbi- 
trary despotic suppression, partly to the grow- 
ing darkness of the middle ages. 



The principal recent authorities on Neopla- 
tonism are Jules Simon and Vacherot, in their 
respective histories of the Alexandrian school, 
and Zeller, in his fifth volume of Die Philosophic 
der Griechen. See also Bouillet's translation of 
Plotinus into French (Paris, 1859). Richter's 
Neuplatomsche Studien (Halle, 1867), and 
Kirchner's Die Philosophic des Plotin (Halle, 
1854). See, further, the articles on Ammonius 


Hierocles, Proclus, and Eunapius in the 
present dictionary. [J. R. M.] 

NEOPTOLEMUS, a gentleman of rank 
to whom Theodoret wrote a consolatory letter on 
the death of his wife. (Theod. Ep. 18.) [E. V.] 

NEOTEBIUS (1) (Neotherius), identified 
as the praefect in a.d. 385 (Clinton, Fast. Rom. 
i. 508-510 ; Cod. Theod. i. pp. cxx. sq.), who in 
vain urged upon St. Ambrose the giving up of 
the church of Portiana, in Milan, at the order of 
the empress Justina for the Arians. (Ambrosius, 
Ep. xx. ap. Pat. Lot. t. xvi. 995; Tillemont, x. 
168 ; Ceillier, v. 384.) [J. G.] 

NEOTEBIUS (2), count, addressed by 
Meletius of Hopsuestia from his exile at Meletina, 
a.d. 436 (Synod, adv. Tragoed. cap. 141, Balm. 
Cone. 842). [J. G.] 

NEPHALIUS, an abbat of a monastery 
near Gaza, one of the heads of the moderate 
Eutychian party. In 487 he went to Constan- 
tinople and complained to the emperor Zeno of 
the violent proceedings of Peter Mongus in 
Egypt. He was sent to Alexandria in company 
with the governor Arsenius to promote healing 
measures, but with no result (Evag. H. E. iii. 
22). Nephalius afterwards deserted the Euty- 
chians and held a dispute with Severus, who was 
then in his monastery. Nephalius and his party 
triumphed and Severus was expelled. (Evag. iii. 
33 ; Tillem. xvi. 378, 684.) [C. H.] 

NEPOS (1), an Egyptian bishop in the latter 
part of the first half of the 3rd century. He was 
the leading champion of the Millenarians in that 
country, and wrote a book called a " Refutation of 
the Allegorists," in which he confuted those who 
gave an allegorical interpretation to the passages 
in the book of Revelation which seem to speak of a 
reign of our Lord upon this earth for a thousand 
years. Soon after the death of Nepos, the in- 
fluence which his book had gained caused it to 
be made the subject, first of a vied voce discussion, 
afterwards of a formal treatise by Dioxrsius or 
Alexandria (see that article). Dionysius, though 
combating the views of Nepos, speaks of him 
with the highest respect for his piety and his 
knowledge of the Scriptures, and in particular 
gratefully acknowledges the service he had ren- 
dered the church by the composition of hymns, 
in which many of the brethren took great delight 
(Euseb. B. E. vii. 24). [Chiliasts.] [G. S.] 

NEPOS (2), JULIUS, the last but one of 

the Roman emperors of the West. He was the 
nephew of Marcellinua the patrician, and appa- 
rently inherited the whole or part of his uncle's 
Dalmatian principality. The emperor Leo gave 
him in marriage the niece of the empress 
Verina (Jornandes, De Segn. Success.'), and con- 

Digitized by 




ferred on him the rank of emperor. A» Leo 
died in January 474, this must hare been at 
latest at the end of 473. He was first proclaimed 
emperor at Ravenna by Domitianus, an officer 
of Leo, and, after vanquishing his predecessor 
Glycerins [Glycemus (8)], was proclaimed at 
Rome, June 24, 474. His short reign did not 
justify the praises and the hopes of Sidonius 
(Epist. v. 16 and viii. 7 in Migne, Patr. Lot. 
Iviii. 546, 598). Almost his only recorded act 
is the cession of Auvergue and its brave defenders 
to the Visigoths [Euric (1)]. The following 
year, Orestes the patrician entered Ravenna, 
at his approach on August 28 (Chronicon Cus- 
pinianum) Nepos fled to Salona in Dalmatia, 
where he retained his hereditary principality, 
and perhaps some other fragments of the Western 
Empire, with the title of emperor. The only 
attempt he made to regain his throne seems to 
have been to send an embassy to the emperor 
Zeno, in 477 or 478, entreating his assistance. 
Zeno gave him fair words, bat no substantial 
help (Malchus, p. 236, ed. Dindorf)- In 480 he 
was murdered, Hay 9, in his own villa near Salona 
by Viator and Ovida (Marcellinus, Ckronkon, in 
Patr. Zat. li. 932). According to one account 
his predecessor was implicated in his death. 
[GLYCERIOS (8).] [F. D.] 

NEPOTIANI. [Nepos (1).] 

(Ducange, f'am. Byzant. 85), son of Eutropia, 
who was sister of Constantine the Great. His 
father was perhaps the Nepotian who was consul 
in A.D. 301, and he himself was probably consul 
in a.d. 336. 

In the troubled year that followed the death 
of Constans and the usurpation of Magnentius 
(A.D. 350), he made a bold attempt to seize the 
empire. On the 3rd June (Idatius, Fasti), he 
assumed the purple near Rome, assembled a band 
of desperadoes and gladiators, marched against 
the city, defeated with great slaughter Anicetus, 
the praetorian prefect, and made himself master 
of Rome. He used his victory cruelly; the 
houses, streets, and temples were filled with 
blood and corpses, and the prefect himself was 
put to death. His triumph, however, was a short 
one ; Magnentius sent against him Marcellinus 
the master of the offices, who defeated and 
killed him on the 1st of July, and his head was 
struck off and carried about the city on a pole. 
(Zosimus,ii. 43 ; Victor de Cues. 42, and Epit. 42 ; 
Eutropius, x. 11.) [F. D.] 

NEPOTIANUS (S), bishop of Clermont in 
Auvergne (Greg. Tur. Glor. Conf. cap. 37, Hitt. 
Fr. i. 41); believed to have died Oct. 22, 38S. 
(Boll. Acta SS. 22 Oct. ix. 613 ; Gall. Chr. ii. 
228 ; Tillem. viii. 126, xiv. 129.) [C. H.] 

NEPOTIANUS (8), a presbyter at Altinum, 
under his uncle Heliodorus, the bishop of that 
place. His death in 396 elicited an interesting 
letter from Jerome to Heliodorus. It relates 
his relinquishment of a military life in favour 
of voluntary poverty and monachism, which he 
intended to pursue in Egypt, Mesopotamia, or 
the solitudes of the Dalmatian islands; his 
ordination, from which at first his modesty 
greatly shrank; and finally his intense and 


unwearied devotion to his pastoral duties. One 
of Jerome's letters (ep. 52, ed. Vail.), De Vita 
Ctericorum et Monachorum, a.d. 394, is addressed 
to Nepotianus. (Boll. Acta SS. 11 Mai. ii. 627 ; 
Tillem. viii. 402, xi. 536, xii. 13, 29, 31, 150- 
155, 200-202; Ceill. vii. 603, 605, 606.) 
[Heuodorus (7).] [C. H.] 

NEREUS, martyr with Achillcus in the 
Tcign of Trajan. The priest of a church dedi- 
cated to their memory at Rome subscribes a, 
decree of Gregory the Great {Pat. Lot. Ixxvii. 
1339 ; Mansi, x. 488). See more under Nebeus 
in D. C. A. and Tillem. i. 189, 316, ii. 127. 

[C. HJ 

NERIANUS, nobleman, addressed in a false 
decretal attributed to pope Anastasius. (Isidor. 
Mercat. Decrtt. Coli. ap. Migne, Pat. Lat. t. 
exxx. 693; Tillem. xii. 257 ; Ceillier, Aid. Sacr. 
vi. 94, discussing its sources). [J. G.] 

NERIENDA, one of the abbesses mentioned 
in a spurious charter of Wihtred king of Kent, 
c. 604 ; but for the reading " Aebbam et 
Neriendam," another is "et Aebbam reverendam.** 
(Haddan and Stubbs, iU. 246.) [C. H.] 

(13th October, a.d. 54-9th June, a.d. 68). For the 
purposes of the present work the interest of Nero's 
life centres in his persecution of the Christians. 
For the general history of his reign, see Meri- 
vale, c. lii.-lv. During the early part of it, 
Christianity was unmolested and seems to have 
spread rapidly at Rome. No doubt it received 
a great impetus from the preaching of St. Paul 
during the two years that followed his arrival, 
which probably occurred early in a.d. 61. For 
a prisoner of his rank, he appears to have been 
treated kindly and to have met with no hindrance 
in his work. But before long a terrible storm 
was to burst on the infant church. 

On the night of the 16th of July, a.d. 64, a, 
fire broke out among the wooden booths and 
shops that were built against the Circus Maximus 
in the valley between the Palatine and the Aven- 
tine. That part of the city contained no great 
houses or temples of solid masonry to resist the 
flames, but consisted of a crowded mass of 
humble dwellings and shops full of inflammable 
contents. Thus the fire soon got such a hold, 
that all attempts to check its progress were 
vain. The lower parts of the city became a sea 
of flame, which occasionally swept over parts of 
the hills themselves. For six days the fire raged 
till it reached the foot of the Esquilinc, where it 
was stopped at last by pulling down a number 
of houses, and thus leaving a vacant space in 
front of it. Soon afterwards a second fire broke 
out in the gardens of Tigellinus near the Pin- 
cian, and raged for three days in the northern 
parts of the city. Though the loss of life was 
less than in the first fire, the destruction of 
temples and public buildings. was more serious. 
By the two fires, three of the fourteen regions 
into which Rome was divided were utterly de- 
stroyed, four escaped entirely, in the remaining 
seven but few houses were left standing. Nero 
was at Antium when the fire broke out, and did 
not return to Rome till it had almost reached 
the vast edifice which he had constructed to 

Digitized by 



connect his palace on the Palatine with the 
gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline. 

Though judicious measures were taken both 
for the immediate relief of the houseless and 
starring multitude, and for the restoration of 
the city on a regular plan, and with materials 
better adapted to resist future fires, and though 
various ceremonies were performed to appease 
the offended gods, the horrible suspicion that 
Nero himself was the author of the fire gained 
strength. This is asserted as a positive fact by 
Suetonius (c. 38), Dion (lxii. 16), and Pliny the 
Elder (ivii. 1), the last being a contemporary, 
but Tacitus alludes to it only as a prevalent 
rumour. Whether it was well founded or not, 
and whether, supposing it to be true, the em- 
peror's motive was to clear away the crooked, 
narrow streets of the old town in order to 
rebuild it on a new and regular plan, or whether 
it was a mere freak of madness, need not be dis- 
cussed here. At any rate Nero found it necessary 
to discover some scapegoats to divert from him- 
self the rage of the people. For this purpose he 
selected the Christians. 

The only author who lived near the time of the 
persecution that gives an account of it is Tacitus. 
As the passage is short and obscure, and has 
been the subject of various interpretations, it 
seems best first to give a translation of it, and 
then to notice the various explanations that have 
been proposed. After describing the origin of the 
sect he proceeds as follows: — "First were ar- 
rested those who confessed (correpti qui fateban- 
tur), then on their information a vast multitude 
was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson 
as for their hatred of the human race. Their 
deaths were made more cruel by the mockery 
that accompanied them. Some were covered 
with the skins of wild beasts and torn to pieces 
by dogs ; others perished on the cross or in the 
flame* ; and others again were burnt after sunset 
as torches to light up the darkness. Nero him- 
self granted his gardens (on the Vatican) for the 
show, and gave an exhibition in the circus, and, 
dressed ss a charioteer, mixed with the people or 
drove his chariot himself. Thus, guilty and 
deserving the severest punishment as they were, 
yet they were pitied, as they seemed to be put to 
death, not for the benefit of the state but to gra- 
tify the cruelty of an individual " (Ahn. xv. 44). 
This brief narrative has been the subject of the 
most various interpretations. Gibbon (c. xvi.) 
was the first to put forward as a conjecture that 
the persons who really suffered were not Chris- 
tians but Jews. Though the general body of 
Jews might have been protected by Poppaea's 
influence, it might easily have been suggested, 
he argues, that the sect of Galilaeans which had 
arisen among them was capable of the most 
horrid crimes. He then goes on to assume a 
confusion between two classes known as Galilaeans, 
namely, the Christians and the Zealots who fol- 
lowed Judas the Gaulonite. The latter sect 
being extinguished in the ruins of Jerusalem, 
Tacitus transferred their guilt and sufferings to 
the Christians. 

Merivale, c. liv., without going so far, suggests 
that the turbulent Jews, who were notorious for 
their appeals to the name of Christ as an ex- 
pected prince, were the first objects of suspicion ; 
when some w ere arrested and questioned, not so 
much as to the burning as to their political 


creed, they sought to implicate the Christians in 
the same charge ; and that the true Christians, 
thus associated in the charge of Christ-worship, 
avowed the fact in their own sense, a sense 
which their judges did not care to discriminate ; 
and that finally the historian, finding that the 
name of Christ was the common shibboleth of 
the victims, imagined that the persecution was 
directed against the Christians only. 

Lightfoot on the other hand (Philippians 24-27) 
considers that the Christians were at this time 
sufficiently numerous and conspicuous to attract 
the fury of the populace. He further adduces 
the evidence of the Apocalypse, and inquires 
how the language applied to Babylon, by which 
Rome is meant, can be explained if the Neronian 
persecution be a figment of later date. 

The German critics are no less divided, and 
here we may notice one of the ambiguities pre- 
sented by the passage in Tacitus. What is the 
meaning of " fatebantur "? Is it "first were 
arrested those who confessad they were Chris- 
tians, who openly confessed Christianity," or 
" first were arrested those who confessed they 
were guilty of the burning ; " and there is a 
minor doubt as to the right translation of "cor- 
repti." Merivale translates it " arrested," but it 
may also bear the Tacitean sense of " accused." 
The second explanation is adopted by Schiller 
(Geschichte des R6m. Kaiserreichsunter A r ero, 435). 
He argues that " fateri " in Tacitus is al ways used 
of the confession of a crime. According to his 
view, as many of the shops near the circus 
where the fire originally broke out were occupied 
by Jews, suspicion would fall upon them, which 
would be strengthened by the fact that the 
Transtiberine, the Ghetto of that time, was one 
of the few quarters that bad escaped the fire. 
At that time Jews and Christians lived in the 
same part of the town and in the same manner. 
Some Orientals were probably arrested on sus- 
picion and put to the question ; by torture and 
promises of pardon an admission of their guilt 
was extorted, with the names of their accom- 
plices; while some of the fanatical Jews may 
voluntarily have made confession in the hopes of 
thereby extinguishing Christianity. Possibly 
too, some faithless Christians may have made a 
similar confession to regain the good opinion of 
the Romans. He treats the proceedings as being 
purely a measure of police, pointing out that 
Suetonius (c. 16) refers to the persecution 
merely incidentally among a number of police 
regulations, and argues that if religion had been 
the motive Nero would have referred the matter 
to the senate. 

Nipperdey on the other hand, the latest editor 
of Tacitus, with Weisziicker and Holtzmann 
(Hist. Zeitschrift, xxxii. 13), adopts the first 
interpretation of " fatebantur." Thus Weisziicker 
(JahrbScher fur Deutsche Tkeotogk, xxi. 269, &c.) 
considers that Nero and his advisers having de- 
cided to select the Christians as the victims 
of the popular indignation, those were first 
seized who were conspicuous members of the 
sect, some of whom, no doubt, were already 
known to the police. They were then charged 
as incendiaries, and from them the names of 
others were ascertained, and these were then 
treated in the same way. Thus a vast number 
were arrested, so many that they could not 
all have been guilty of arson. We are here 

Digitized by 



parenthetically cautioned against supposing that 
any real confession of the crime was made 
either under torture or through Jewish hatred 
of the Christians. The charge of arson thus 
breaking down, that of "odium humani generis" 
was brought forward, and it was on this they 
were convicted. On what grounds could such 
a charge be based ; on their practice or their 
doctrine ? As to the former, the mind of the 
historian may indeed have been coloured by 
the calumnies of a later date, the 0ve<rrcta 
teivva, and the like, but it is not unlikely that 
such dark rumours were already current, and 
inflamed the passions of the mob. Still the expres- 
sion, " odium humani generis," is too vague, had 
the trial been decided for such reasons, while 
a superficial examination of their doctrines 
would supply ample grounds for the conviction 
which had been previously determined. One of 
the beliefs most cherished and insisted upon by 
the early Christian was that the end of the 
world was close at hand when all things should 
perish in the flames. Such a [doctrine was suffi- 
cient justification of "odium humani generis," and 
it was consistent that those who believed in the 
approaching destruction of the world by fire 
should anticipate it by burning the chief city of 
the world. Thus though arson was the crime 
for which they were put on their trial, it was 
not that for which they were convicted. Though 
the original charge had broken down, yet 
enough had transpired on the trial to shew that 
they deserved to be punished, and accordingly 
they were found guilty. A regular trial was 
necessary for Nero's purpose, and the more 
formal it was, the better it would clear his 
character. Thus though the Christianity of the 
victims was not directly the cause of their 
sufferings, yet indirectly it was in two ways. 
The fact that their religion was hated and evil 
spoken of was, in the first place, the cause that 
they were selected by Nero and his advisers as 
scapegoats ; and in the next, the original charge 
having broken down, the cause of their condem- 
nation was not indeed the circumstance that 
they belonged to a particular religion, but the 
character with which they were invested in the 
•yes of the public by the mere fact of their 
belonging to it. 

In such a conflict of authorities it seems im- 
possible to arrive at any positive conclusion, but 
it may be proper to indicate as shortly as pos- 
sible the view that seems most probable. 

Nero, in search of some victims to divert the 
popular indignation from himself, selected the 
Christians. Why he did so must remain un- 
certain. The Jews, who at first sight would 
seem more likely to be chosen, as being more 
conspicuous and probably more unpopular, were 
in the first place protected by their influence at 
court [PoppabaJ, and in the next they were 
strong enough to make even Nero think twice 
about attacking them. A Jewish persecution in 
Rome might excite a dangerous revolt in Judaea. 
A variety of causes on the other hand might 
point out the Christians as convenient objects 
for the emperor's purpose. While they were 
conspicuous and numerous enough to furnish a 
plentiful supply of victims, they were too few 
and weak to be formidable. Possibly the Jewish 
influence at court which has been alluded to 
may have thrown its weight into the scale. The 


predictions current among the Christians of tha 
approaching destruction of the world may have 
lent a colour to the accusation, and some of them 
may have incautiously expressed their satisfac- 
tion at the destruction of so many heathen 
temples, which must have appeared to them aa 
an anticipation of the approaching catastrophe. 
The victims thus being selected, WeizsScker's 
account of the subsequent proceedings against 
them seems on the whole to be fairly probable. 

From the allusions of St. Clement (Epistle to 
the Corinthians, c. 6), a little more information 
can be obtained. Like Tacitus, he speaks of the 
vast multitude, and mentions that women under- 
went terrible and unholy tortures. From the MS. 
reading of the passage (Sick {ijAor Sia>x0«<rat 
yvvaiKes AaWuSej (col Alpicai, aMcr/Mrra 6W& 
ical h>6am xafloucrai), it has been supposed that 
they were tortured to death on the stage or in 
the circus, being compelled to represent various 
mythological stories ending in the death of the 
performer. Such scenes were not uncommon on 
the Roman stage, e.g. a Hercules was represented 
burning to death in the fatal Nessus shirt (Tert. 
Apol. 15), or an Orpheus being torn to pieces by 
a bear (Hart. Sped, xxi.), and the account 
agrees well with the expression of Tacitus, per- 
euritibus addita ludibria. The famous group at 
Naples generally known as the Karnese Bull, 
shews how the myth of Dirce might be adapted 
for such a purpose ; it represents her being tied 
by Amphion and Zethus to the horns of a wild 
bull. On the other hand no plausible conjecture 
has been made as to how the story of the Danaids 
could be scenically represented so as to serve as 
a means of torture, and if St. Clement's meaning 
was that women in the characters of Danaids 
and Dirces suffered tortures, the form of expres- 
sion he has chosen seems very strange and 
unnatural. For these reasons Bishop Wordsworth 
has conjectured yvyaTxts, vtdviSes, toiS(o"«u. 
This reading is approved by the bishop of 
Durham, by Bunsen, and by Lipsius (Light foot, 
51 and 409). The meaning would then be wives, 
tender maidens, even slave-girls. M. Renan 
(L'Antechrist, 167-181) expands these two words 
into fourteen pages. 

Was the persecution confined to Rome, or did 
it extend to the rest of the empire? There is 
little evidence in favour of the latter conclusion. 
The acts of the saints who are mentioned by 
Tillemont (J/ifro. Ecct. ii. 73-89) are all more 
or less fabulous, and assuming them to be 
authentic there seems to be little or no ground 
for placing them in the reign of Nero. Renan 
(L'Antechrist, 183) argues that the persecution 
must have extended to Asia Minor, from the 
allusions in the Apocalypse, especially in the 
epistles to the seven churches. But to support 
this inference, first the theory that the 
Apocalypse was written in the reign of Galba 
must he adopted, and, even if this were 
established, the allusions in question may be 
explained without assuming that a regular 
persecution was commanded. The accounts in 
the Acts of the missionary journeys of St. Paul 
shew how easily an outbreak of popular fury 
might be excited by Jews or heathens, who, 
either on religious or private grounds, were 
hostile to the new doctrine, and how easily in 
such an outbreak a conspicuous Christian might 
be murdered without any edict against 

Digitized by 



Christianity being issued by the state, or indeed 
without the public authorities interfering at 
all, and also it is not unreasonable to suppose 
that, when Nero set the example of persecution, 
many of the provincial magistrates would take 
a harsher view in the case of any Christian 
that might be brought before them than they 
had previously done. As for inscriptions, that 
given by Cyriac of Ancona as found in some 
unknown place in Spain has long been con- 
sidered a forgery (Corpus Inscript. ii. 25*). 

An attempt has been made to find an allusion 
to the Neronian persecution in a graffito 
discovered at Pompeii in 1862, an account of 
which is given by M. Aulie (Persecutions de 
rSglise, 415-421). But in the first place the 
only word in the inscription which is legible 
with certainty is Christianas, and in the next 
place it apparently must have been traced 
shortly before the destruction of the city in 
A.D. 79, that is ten years at least after the end 
of Nero's reign. 

There finally remain the late testimonies of 
Orosius, vii. 7, and Sulpicius Severns, ii. 29. 
Bat they wrote many centuries after these 
events and at a time when the idea of a general 
proscription of Christianity was familiar. 
Against their evidence is to be set the silence of 
contemporary history, and especially the fact 
that Tacitus in his narrative seems to consider 
that the only places where Christians were then 
found were Judaea and Rome. 

A few words remain to be said on the question 
of the connection between Nero and Antichrist, 
which has been lately brought into prominence 
by the interesting work of M. Kenan. The 
significance of the Neronian persecution lies in 
the fact that it was the first. Hitherto the 
attitude of the state officials to Christianity had 
an the whole been favourable; at the worst 
they treated it with contemptuous indifference. 
All this was now suddenly changed. The head 
of the state has made a ferocious attack on the 
infant church. Henceforth the two powers are 
to be in antagonism more or less violent till the 
struggle of 250 years is dosed by the conver- 
sion of Constantine. Whatever be the date of 
the Apocalypse, it can hardly be donbted that the 
Neronian persecution with all its horrors was 
vividly present to the mind of the author. 

To have perished obscurely by his own hand 
seemed both to Pagans and Christians too 
common-place an end for a monster who for 
fourteen years had filled such a place in the 
eyes and the minds of men. Snch a career 
seemed to demand a more dramatic, a more 
striking termination. At the same time few 
had witnessed his death, so that the notion 
easily arose that he was still alive, had taken 
refuge with the Partbians, and would reappear 
again. Tacitus mentions two instances (Hist. 
i. 2, ii. 8-9) of the appearance of false Neros, 
and Suetonius (c 56) alludes to another. In 
the days of his prosperity diviners had predicted 
his fall, and had added that he would gain a 
new dominion in the East and Jerusalem and 
would at last regain the empire (Suetonius, c. 40). 

According to the theory of M. Reuss (Histoire 
de la Theoiogie ChrHienne, i. 429-452), adopted 
by Kenan, the Apocalypse was written daring 
the reign of Galba, that is at the end of A.D. 
68 or the beginning of A.D. 69, when men's 



minds were agitated, especially in Asia Minor, 
by the appearance of a false Nero in the island 
of Cythnus (Tac Hist. ii. 8). M. Reuss 
interprets the first six heads of the first beast 
as the emperors Augustas, Tiberius, Caius, 
Claudius, Nero, and Galba, of whom the first 
five were dead, while the sixth, Galba, was 
then on the throne. As the latter was then 
seventy-three his reign must soon terminate; 
then a seventh was to follow and reign for a 
short time, and then one of the preceding em- 
perors who was supposed to be dead was to 
reappear as Antichrist. The first four em- 
perors had not been hostile to the Christians, 
and none of them, except Caius, had perished by 
a violent death. Nero therefore is the only one 
that answers the description. Finally M. Reuss 
interprets the number of the beast as the 
numerical value of the letters composing the 
words Vldpuv Kmaap when written in Hebrew, 
and explains the existence of the ancient 
various reading 616 by supposing it was due 
to a Latin reader who had found the solution, 
but pronounced the name Nero and not Neron, 
the omission of the final n making the difference 
of 50. 

Whether this theory be well founded or not, 
it is certain that the opinion that Nero would 
return again as Antichrist continued for 
centuries. Commodianus, who probably wrote 
about A.D. 250, alludes to it (xli. in Migne, 
Patr. Lot. v. 231), and even in the fifth century 
St. Augustine (de Civ. Dei, xx. 19, in Patr. Lot. 
xli. 686) mentions that some then believed he 
would rise again and reappear as Antichrist, 
and that others thought he had never died, but 
would appear again at the appointed time, and 
recover his kingdom. Another view was that 
Nero would reappear again, but would be 
distinct from Antichrist and would be his pre- 
cursor. (Lact. Jtortes 2, Sulp. Sev. Dial. ii. 14 
in Patr. Lot. vii. 197, xx. 211.) [F. D.] 

NERO (2), '■ magister and ex-consul, ad- 
dressed by Nilus (lib. ii. ep. 319 in Pat. Or. 
lxxix.), who predicts that his wickedness wilt 
not go unpunished. (Tillem. xiv. 198.) 


NEBSAN, a Persian nobleman who aposta- 
tised from Christianity in the reign of Sapor, 
and perished miserably (Boll. Acta SS. 9 Apr. 
i. 825, § 3 ; Tillem. vii. 95, 96). [C. H.] 

NERSAPUS, bishop of Daron in Armenia, 
and the great supporter of the Julianist section 
of the Monophysite party in that country. (Le 
Quien, i. 1424.) * [G. T. S.] 

NERSAS, bishop and martyr in Persia. 
Vid. D. C. A. 

NERSES. [Norseses.] 

NERVA, Roman emperor, A.D. 96-98. M. 
Cocceius Nerva was the third in succession of a 
family conspicuous for legal and administrative 
power in the first century of the empire. His 
grandfather, eminent as a jurist, had been consul 
under Tiberius (Tac. Ann. ir. 58, vi. 26) in 
a.d. 22, was the emperor's chosen companion, 
and starved himself to death in A.D. 33. His 
father was consulted as an advocate at the age 
of seventeen, and is mentioned by Tacitus as a 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



praetor designates. The future emperor was 
born a.d. 32 at Narnia in Umbria, but the family 
is said to hare been originally from Crete (Aurel. 
Vict. Epit. xii.). In conformity with the tradi- 
tions of the family he acquired a civil rather 
than a military reputation, and was consul with 
Vespasian a.d. 71, and with Domitian in a.d. 90. 
On the assassination of Domitian by Stephanus, 
the freedman and agent of Domitilla, he was 
elected as emperor by the soldiers, the people 
and the senate, and his reign was distinguished 
by a reversal of the policy of his predecessor. 
The connexion of Stephanus with Domitilla, if 
we accept the tradition that she and Flavios 
Clemens were Christians [Domitian] may indi- 
cate that the movement that placed Nerva on 
the throne of the empire was in part, at least, 
designed to further a more tolerant system of 
government than that which had prevailed under 
Domitian. Such, at any rate, was its effect. St. 
John was recalled from his exile in Patmos 
<Eu»eb. H. E. iii. 20). The crowd of delatores, 
who, under the heads of treason, atheism and 
Judaism, had preferred accusations which, in 
the nature of the case, fell most heavily on the 
Christians, were banished, and those who had 
been sent to prison or exile on these charges 
were recalled and set at liberty. Other measures 
of the, emperor, though not distinctly Christian, 
tended in the same direction. Provision was 
made for the poor by the purchase aud cultiva- 
tion of lands. Institutions, afterwards supported 
and enlarged by Trajan, were founded for the 
education of orphans and destitute children in 
the cities of Italy. The prohibition of the grow- 
ing practice of castration indicated a higher 
morality (Dion Cass, lriii. 2). The conspiracy of 
Calpurnius Crassus, a man of senatorial rank, 
and the demands of the Praetorian Guard, headed 
by their prefect, Aelianus Casperius, for the 
punishment of the murderers of Domitian, a de- 
mand to which the emperor reluctantly yielded 
by the execution of Petronius Secundus and 
Parthianus (Plin. Panegyr. c. 6; Aurel. Vict. 
Epit. 12 ; Dion Cass. Iviii. 3), made him feel the 
necessity of associating a younger man with 
him in the cares of government, and his choice 
fell on H. Ulpius Tbajancs, then in com- 
mand of the legions on the Rhine. In con- 
nexion with a victory obtained in Pannonia, 
Nerva took the title of Germanicus, conferred 
the same distinction on Trajan, together with the 
title of Caesar and the Tribunicia potestas, and 
the two were elected as consuls in a.d. 98. In 
the course of the same year he died after a short 
illness, was carried to the sepulchre of Augustus 
on the shoulders of the senators, and his memory 
honoured by the customary apotheosis which 
added the title otttvus to bis name. The reputa- 
tion which he left behind him is best summed up 
iu the words of Tacitus, who speaks of his reign as 
having opened the " beatissimum saeculum," which 
included the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian and the 
Antonines, and of the emperor himself as having 
united "res olim dissociabiles, principatum ac 
iibertatem " ( Vit. Agric. c. 3). [E. H. P.] 

NESTABUS, martyr. [Eusebius (113).] 
NESTEROS. [Nistherous.] 
NESTOR. See also under Nestobios. 


NESTOR (1) (N6rr»p) a confessor at Gaza, 
who died of wounds inflicted by the populace in 
the reign of Julian. (Soz. v. 9.) [C. H.] 

NESTOR (2), a gladiator, martyred under 
Maximian, according to Simeon Metaphrastes 
(Surius, De Prdb. SS. Hist. 8 Oct., pp. 107, 108, 
num. vii.-ii.; Boll. Acta SS. 8 Oct. iv. 60). 
Tillemont (v. 638) comments on the narrative, 
which he calls fabulous and scandalous. 

[C. H.] 

NESTOR (3), bishop of Tarsus, one of those 
banished from their sees in 489 by the emperor 
Zeno, as related by Theophanes (Chronog. sub. 
A.c. 482). The text, which is here confused, 
gives his see incorrectly, but the Latin of 
Anastasius Bibliothecarius amends it {Pat. Gr. 
cviii. 325, 1239). [C. H.] 

NESTOR (4), Feb. 14, bishop of Trimithus 
in Cyprus, placed by Le Quien (U. 1070) before 
680 (cf. Boll. Acta SS. 7 Mart. i. 643). [C. H.] 

NESTORIANISM. (The adherents of this 
party were named Simoniani by an edict of the 
emperor Theodosius. They reject the name 
Nestoriana, and call themselves Chaldaeans.) 
Nestorianism was the heresy which marked the 
earlier portion of the 5th century, as Arianism 
marked the earlier portion of the 4th century. 
It marked, too, one of the great stages on the 
road towards that complete Christological con- 
ception to which the church has since clung. 
We shall discuss the subject in the following 
order : I. The sources of Nestorianism and its 
relation to previous heresies. II. Its rise and 
progress to the council of Ephesus. III. Its 
subsequent history within the empire till the 
suppression of the school of Edessa by the em- 
peror Zeno, a.d. 489. IV. Nestorianism in Persia. 

l\ As to the sources of Nestorianism and rela- 
tion 1 to previous heresies we may describe it as 
a reaction against Apollinarianism. Nestorianism 
was a product of the school of Antioch. The 
school of Antioch was marked by one doctrinal 
tendency, the school of Alexandria by an opposite 
tendency. To quote the very clear words of 
Neander (H. E. iii. 500, ed. Bonn), "In the 
Alexandrian school, an intuitive mode of appre- 
hension inclining to the mystical ; in the An- 
tiochene, a logical reflective bent of the under- 
standing predominated." The Alexandrian 
school fixed its attention therefore almost en- 
tirely on the Divine side of Christ's person, a 
tendency which found its final development in 
the Monophysite heresy; to which even Cyril, with 
all his dogmatic precision, at times approached 
perilously near. The Antiochene school fixed its 
attention chiefly, though not exclusively, on the 
human side of Christ's person, insisting on its 
completeness and therefore its separate per- 
sonality, a tendency which found its final de- 
velopment in Nestorianism. The full exposition 
and proof of these statements will be found in 
Neander, /. c. iii. 499, iv. 107-123. The An- 
tiochene school holding fast to the completeness 
of Christ's human nature was brought by its 
dogmatic tendencies, as well as by local contact, 
into sharp conflict with the Apollinarian view, 
Apollinaris being a Syrian bishop. Now Apolli- 
naris, in defining the unity of Christ's person, 
made much use of the theological principle 

Digitized by 



called the interchange of attribute! (comrauni- 
catio idiomatum ; ityrtfitBioTOffts r&v oVojuct- 
ron>); and waa fond of such expressions as 
" God died," " God was born," which were most 
abhorrent to the great writers Diodorus of Tar- 
sus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who shaped the 
fortunes of the Antiochene school towards the 
end of the 4th century, and the beginning of 
the 5th. In Theodore's writings, indeed, can be 
traced all the principles of Nestorianism, of 
which he was the real founder. Thus, in his 
treatise on the Incarnation in Mai's Nova Coll. 
Vett. Scriptt. t. vi. p. 305, we see Nestorianism 
appearing full blown as a reaction against 
Apollinarianism. There he teaches that both 
natures in Christ are complete, and as such are 
each of them personal, personality being an 
essential part of a complete nature. He there- 
fore rejects the use of the term union (Spawn), 
preferring conjunction (ervn&pcia), in reference 
to the two natures in Christ. He allows the 
application of the term 0«otokot to the Blessed 
Virgin only, in a figure preferring the term 
drfpnr o riKot ; and maintains that God dwelt 
not in the man Jesus either by nature or by 
energy, which cannot be limited or conditioned 
{-rtpiypwpifi€yot), but solely by the Divine Com- 
placency (t&SoKia) in his eminent virtue just as 
he dwells in the saints, only in a higher degree, 
inasmuch as the virtue of the man Christ sur- 
passed all human virtue. On this point of the 
connexion between Theodore and Nestorianism 
the reader may consult Neander, /. c, Dorner's 
Doctrine of Chrai't Person, Div. ii. t. i. p. 25 
pass., and Leontius of Byzantium in his treatise 
against Nestorius, where this view is expounded 
at length. (Migne, Pat. Grace, t. lxxxvi. 1386, 
cf. de Sectis, 1222.) 

II. History of heresy to the council of 
Ephesus. Theodore of Mopsuestia waa the real 
founder of Nestorianism, but, as has often happened, 
the heresy has gained its name from a man who 
merely popularised principles which a deeper 
and more retired thinker had previously elabo- 
rated. The following was the occasion of its rise. 
Sisinnius, patriarch of Constantinople, died Dec. 
24th, 427. The school of Antioch was then in 
high repute at Constantinople, owing to the 
saintly memory of St. Chrysostom. From it 
therefore Nestorius was chosen as his successor. 
[Nestorids.] Nestorius was a disciple of Theo- 
dore, a monk of the monastery of Euprepius, 
near Antioch, and celebrated for his eloquence 
and austerity. He was consecrated bishop of 
Constantinople the 10th of April, 428 ; when he 
at once set himself to crush ont by force various 
forms of heresy which had hitherto found tolera- 
tion in the imperial city and neighbourhood ; a 
course of conduct in which he must have advanced 
to great lengths, as even the public opinion of the 
orthodox turned against him and branded him 
as an incendiary (Soc H. E. vii. 29). He soon, 
however, fell himself under suspicion. He had 
brought with him from Antioch a presbyter, 
Anastasius, as his syncellus or private chaplain. 
This man was a thorough-going adherent of 
Theodore's doctrines, and came to Constantinople 
evidently determined to use his official position 
to advance them in every way. [Anastasius.] 
This Anastasius, preaching one day in presence 
of Nestorius, said : " Let no one call Mary 
Theotocos ; for Mary was but a woman, and it is 



impossible that God should be born of a woman." 
These words created a great sensation, as the 
title had become a popular one for the Blessed 
Virgin, sanctioned as it had been by Athanasius 
and many orthodox fathers, and even by Euse- 
bius in the third book of his life of Constantine. 
Nestorius, instead of condemning the preacher, 
threw the shield of his episcopal authority over 
him by delivering several discourses in mainte- 
nance of the same view. These sermons are still 
extant in the works of Marius Mercator, a 
devout African layman, who, being just then in 
Constantinople, took the greatest interest in this 
controversy. A report of these discussions was 
rapidly borne to Egypt, where it stirred up con- 
siderable debate among the monks, whereupon 
Cyril, at Easter a.d. 429, addressed to them an 
elaborate exposition of the orthodox doctrine in 
twenty-seven chapters (Mansi, Concil. iv. 587). 
A copy of this epistle was soon carried to Con- 
stantinople, and excited the wrath of Nestorius, 
who handed it over to Photius, one of his clergy, 
for refutation. This being reported to Cyril, he 
wrote an epistle to Nestorius in July of the 
same year, pointing out that he had taken up 
no new position in special opposition to Nestorius 
when writing to the monks, but had simply 
reiterated views he had already enunciated in 
his work on the Trinity, published during the 
episcopate of Atticus, bishop of Constantinople. 
He also called the attention of Nestorius to the 
conclusions which some of the monks had already 
deduced from his teaching, refusing to style Christ 
God, and calling him merely the instrument of 
the divinity. Nestorius replied to the expostu- 
lation in a brief and scornful manner, whereupon 
a very embittered controversy began, wherein each 
party charged the other with the most extreme 
consequences he could deduce from his adver- 
sary's premises. Cyril charged Nestorius with 
denying the real divinity of Christ, like Paul of 
Samosata, while Nestorius retorted by charging 
his opponent with attributing the temporal acci- 
dents of birth, suffering and death to the Divine 
Nature like the pagans. Each combatant strove 
to secure the pope for his own side. They did 
not indeed formally appeal to him, as Roman 
writers like Lupus (Opp. t. vii.) maintain. They 
simply strove as independent patriarchs to gain 
bis powerful alliance. Nestorius took the 
initiative in this proceeding early in the year 
430. He made an excuse of the presence of 
Julian, a Pelagian bishop and his associates 
from the West to request full information from 
pope Celestine about their case. This led him 
to notice his own perplexities. Views, as he 
puts it, akin to Arianism and Apollinarianism 
were popular at Constantinople, so much so that 
some say "that God the Word had taken his 
origin from the Virgin, the mother of Christ, 
and that Christ's flesh after the resurrection had 
been changed into the nature of the divi- 
nity." The pope not having replied at once 
to this letter, Nestorius addressed another t» 
him on the same topic Whereupon Celestine 
sent an epistle (Mansi, iv. 1026), telling Nes- 
torius that the delay was unavoidable, as his 
letter and documents had to be translated into 
Latin, a fact which clearly shews the decline of 
Greek learning in Rome one hundred years after 
the change of empire to Constantinople. Cyril 
meanwhile had been informed by his emissaries- 

Digitized by 




at Constantinople of the correspondence between 
Nestorius and the pope. The interval of delay 
afforded him time to communicate with Celes- 
tine, who was a very poor theologian. The 
pope completely adopted Cyril's views, and 
plainly told Nestorius that his tenets were sim- 
ple blasphemy. Events now proceeded apace. 
The literary activity of Cyril was immense, as 
the collected edition of his works in Migne's 
Patr. Graec., the documents collected in Mansi, 
(t. iv.) and the works of Marius Mercator abun- 
dantly prove. Cyril addressed lengthened 
treatises to the emperor Theodosius, who was 
however completely under the inBuence of Nes- 
torius, to the empresses Pulcheria and Eudoila, 
to the bishops of the East, and to his sympa- 
thisers and adherents among the clergy and 
monks of Constantinople, whom Nestorius had 
excommunicated. The pope held a council at 
Rome in August, a.d. 430, which excommuni- 
cated Nestorius, unless he repented within ten 
days of the reception of their sentence. Cyril 
assembled another at Alexandria, which ratified 
this sentence, and forwarded it to Constantinople, 
together with twelve anathemas, which he called 
on Nestorius to accept. To these Nestorius re- 
plied by a series of counter-anathemas. The 
emperor and his advisers, seeing no prospect of 
peace, consented at last in November, a.d. 430, 
to snmmon a general council, the writs for which 
were addressed to all metropolitan bishops, re- 
quiring them to meet at Ephesus by the follow- 
ing feast of Pentecost, attended by such a num- 
ber of their holiest bishops that a < sufficient 
supply might be left at home to discharge neces- 
sary episcopal functions ; a limitation so vague 
that Cyril and his friends easily evaded it, and 
packed the council with their own adherents. 
£ John (31) or Antioch.] There is no necessity 
to repeat the story of the general council of 
Ephesus, and the struggles of Nestorius on the 
one hand and of Cyril on the other, as this has 
been already told in Cyril's life (t. i. p. 767) cf. 
EPHESD3,Councils of, in Dictionary of Chbisti an 
Antiquities, Vol. I. It must suffice to say that 
the bishops attendant on Cyril and on Memnon, 
the local bishop of Ephesus, so completely out- 
numbered their opponents that Nestorius did not 
even appear at the council, but allowed judgment 
to go against him by default. In connexion how- 
ever with John, metropolitan of Antioch, he held 
a council of his own adherents, some thirty or 
forty in number, who in turn excommunicated 
and deposed Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius seems 
to have completely relied on the imperial protec- 
tion. Cyril, on the other hand, though very 
violent, seems to have realised more deeply the 
great spiritual issues involved, and therefore 
openly defied the imperial wishes. The atmos- 
phere of Constantinople had too often an ener- 
vating effect on the fibre of its prelates. They 
became secularised, mere courtly sycophants, 
more ready to rely upon imperial favour or 
humour imperial wishes, than to depend upon 
spiritual forces and arguments. Cyril had 
much more of the sturdy spirit of Western 
independence. He at least had not been nur- 
tured in and weakened by the atmosphere of 
a court. An epistle of count Irenaeus, an 
imperial official entrusted with the maintenance 
of order, is very instructive on this point. It 
is found in Mansi, iv. 1390. It is addressed 


to the emperor, and dwells on the contempt 
for imperial authority and wishes shewn by 
Cyril. Letters addressed by the Nestoriaa 
party to the magistrates and to the pro- 
vost or head of local police of Ephesus prove 
that the populace were bitterly hostile to Nes- 
torius (/. c. 1383-1386). They complain of in- 
sults, houses attacked with stones, churches 
closed against them, all because of their obedi- 
ence to the imperial commands, and they petition 
the crown for the assembling of a new council, 
where each metropolitan should appear, attended 
by two bishops alone. They assert that Cyril 
had brought with him a crowd of " ignorant 
rustics," whose violence overawed all others, 
together with fifty Egyptian bishops; while 
Memnon had summoned forty more from his juris- 
diction, a statement which is fully borne out by 
the admissions of Cyril and his friends as found 
in Coptic MSS. published by Zoega in Cat. Cod. 
Copt. MSS. [cf. Senuti]. While the bishops spent 
the summer of 431 in bitter wranglings and dis- 
putes, venting themselves at times in personal 
encounters, Cyril and his friends called to their 
aid powerful allies in the monks of Constantinople, 
headed by the archimandrite Dalmatius, who for 
forty-eight years had never left the cell in which 
he had immured himself. [Dalmatics (4).] 
This man headed a procession of monks to the 
imperial palace, and terrorised the weak emperor 
into compliance with their wishes. But Cyril 
depended not alone upon the influence of monks, 
or the power of his arguments and treatises. 
He lavished bribes right and left, in order to gain 
powerful court officials to his side. His course 
of proceedings in such cases is disclosed to us by 
a letter of his archdeacon and syncellus Epi- 
phanius, preserved for us in the Synodicon, c 203 
(Theodoret, Opp. t. v. Ep. 173). This letter was 
addressed to Maximianus, the patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, appointed, instead of Nestorius, in 
October 431. [Maximianus.] It is an interest- 
ing specimen of the way theological and political 
considerations were intermingled at Constanti- 
nople. Epiphanius tells the patriarch that 
Cyril had written to the empress Pulcheria, 
and to her influential chamberlains, and bribes, 
or, as he more elegantly puts it, presents 
(fiXoylai) had been sent to such as were worthy 
of them. An attempt had been made to gain over 
one of the chief chamberlains, Chrysoretes, who 
was hostile by sending him magnificent presents 
" ut tandem desisteret ab oppugnatione eccle- 
siae." The patriarch was requested to urge 
Pulcheria to use her influence with the palace 
officials. The patriarch was to give these offi- 
cials whatever their avarice demanded, although 
they had already received presents enough. 
Various court ladies were to be induced to co- 
operate in effecting a separation between John 
of Antioch and Nestorius. The abbat Dalmatius 
must protest earnestly before the emperor, so as 
to alarm his conscience. The abbat Entyches 
even, whose name afterwards became so famous, 
was called upon to act with vigour as one of the 
tools of Cyril's party. Appended to the letter was 
a list of the persons to whom bribes had been 
sent from Alexandria, that the patriarch Maxi- 
mianus might see how much the Alexandrian 
church had interested itself in his cause, because 
of course he could only retain his office, if the 
deposition of Nestorius remained valid. The 

Digitized by 



clergy and church of Alexandria even mourned 
over the poverty brought upon them by the 
excessive expenditure incurred. The patriarch 
was also requested to procure the appointment 
of Laosus as chief chamberlain, that so the power 
of Chrysoretes might be destroyed and the ortho- 
dox faith confirmed. (Cf. Hefele's Councils, t. 
lii. pp. 112, 134, Clark's ed. for a very weak 
defence of Cyril's conduct in this matter.) 
[Chrysoretes. Lausus.] The upshot of all 
the imperial vacillations and episcopal intrigues 
was that Nestorius was deprived in Sept. or 
Oct. 431 of his patriarchal throne, and rele- 
gated to the monastery of Euprepius, near An- 
tioch, whence he had been summoned to the 
episcopate, and Haximianus was substituted in his 
place. It is unnecessary now to enter into all 
the subsequent details, as they will be found 
stated under the names of the various actors 
in the controversy, Cyril, John of Antioch, 
Ibas, Rabulas, Theodoret, &c. We will there- 
fore only present a rapid summary of the 
course of events between the councils of Ephesus 
and Chalcedon. After the deposition of Nes- 
torius, Cyril, like a skilful general, perceiving 
that the forces of his opponents were too strong 
for him when united, determined to effect a 
division in their ranks. With this end in view 
he endeavoured to win over John, whose metro- 
politan position at Antioch marked him out as 
the natural leader of the Syrian opposition. An 
opportunity soon offered. The emperor was 
weary of controversy, and determined to effect 
an ecclesiastical peace. He therefore put pres- 
sure upon the Syrians who opened negotiations 
with Cyril through Paul of Emesa. Paul had 
belonged to the party of Nestorius at the coun- 
cil of Ephesus, where his address and knowledge 
of affairs had made him a natural leader. He 
now lent himself to the imperial wishes, and 
towards the latter part of 432 visited Cyril at 
Alexandria, and explained the views of the 
Orientals as set forth in a symbolic document, 
which applied the term Btorixos to the Blessed 
Virgin in the sense that two natures were 
united in Christ, while each remained pure and 
unmixed in its individuality. To this Cyril 
consented, while, on the other hand, John and 
his adherents agreed to acquiesce in the con- 
demnation of Nestorius, and recognise the 
ordination of his successor as valid. From this 
time John completely abandoned the cause of 
Nestorius. He even demanded that more rigor- 
ous action should be taken against him. His 
presence just at the gates of Antioch was felt 
by John as a standing reproach against his own 
inconsistency. In 435, therefore, the joint in- 
fluence of Cyril and John obtained the adoption 
of stronger measures against Nestorius and his 
followers. His disciples were to be called 
Simonians ; his books were to be burnt ; the 
republication or preservation of them was made 
a penal offence ; the bishops who adhered to his 
views were to be deposed, while the poor man 
himself was exiled first of all to Petra in Arabia, 
• destination afterwards changed to the great 
oasis of Egypt. The treaty between Cyril and 
John was met, however, with the sternest opposi- 
tion. Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata were 
satisfied with Cyril's explanation, but could not 
agree to the deposition of Nestorius ; while, as for 
the zealots of the Syrian party, men like Alex- 



ander of Hierapolis and Meletius of Hopsuestia, 
they threw all their energies into organising an 
active opposition. Cyril and John, however, 
using the forces of imperial law, by degrees 
crushed all opposition, and drove their opponents 
across the border into Persia, where the Nesto- 
rian party organised itself afresh. Within the 
empire the controversy was silenced only for a 
little time. The opposing doctrinal tendencies 
shewed themselves in the controversies which 
burst forth anew after Cyril's death in a.d. 444 
between Theodoret and Dioscorus, the new 
patriarch of Alexandria, which led up to the 
synod of Chalcedon, where by the force of reac- 
tion Theodoret's orthodoxy was vindicated, and 
Syrian theology became triumphant. [DIOSCORUS 
(1).] Theodoret at the same time, like John of 
Ephesus, seems to have become bitterly hostile to 
Nestorius himself, as the cause of the whole 
quarrel. He speaks very severely of him in his 
fourth Book on Heresies ; so severely indeed 
that grave doubts have been expressed concern- 
ing the authorship of the passage. Cf. Theodoret, 
t. v. Diss. 2, p. 251, Opp. ; ed. darner ; see 
contra, Ceillier, x. 84. Unsuccessful men like 
Nestorius are, however, apt to meet with but 
slight sympathy from their more fortunate 
brethren. The continued existence of Neste- 
rianism as an organised system is due, however, 
not to episcopal controversialists within the 
empire, but to the great ecclesiastical school of 
Edessa, and its Persian disciples beyond the 
border. That school had been famous for ages, 
and had served as a great Christian literary 
centre for all the neighbouring lands, Armenia, 
Syria, Chaldaea, and Persia. Its influence on 
Armenia and its church has been noticed under 
Mesrobes and Moses (5) of Khoren. At the 
time of the council of Ephesus the bishop of 
Edessa was one Rabulas. He was in entire 
accord with Ibas, the head of the Persian school 
in Edessa, and both were devoted disciples of 
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rabulas attended at 
Ephesus, and took a most decided part with John 
of Antioch and Nestorius in opposition to St. 
Cyril. He soon, however, recognised the win- 
ning side and joined it. Immediately upon his 
return he held a synod, where he excommunicated 
John and his party, anathematised Theodore, who 
was dead, committed the writings of Theodoret 
and Andrew of Samosata to the flames, and ex- 
pelled the Persian school from Edessa. This 
must have occurred towards the close of 431, or 
early part of 432 a.d., as even John of Antioch, 
who that same year abandoned the side of Nes- 
torius, wrote a letter reprobating the proceedings 
of Rabulas. It is from the celebrated letter of 
Ibas to Maris, bishop of Hardascir in Persia, that 
we learn the details of his bishop's conduct, and 
at the same time get a glimpse of the views 
taken by the more moderate party in the Syrian 
church about the whole controversy, as Ibas 
deals out blame to Nestorius as well as to Cyril. 
[Ibas.] [Maris (4).] Ibas, however, took up 
a bitterly hostile position towards Rabulas, and 
by his translation into Persian of the works 
of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore laid the 
foundation of the Nestorian movement in that 
country. In 435 he was elected bishop of Edessa 
in succession to his opponent Rabulas, a choice 
which mast of course have given a great impulse 
to the progress of Nestorian views. The tyran- 

Digitized by 




nicnl expulsion of the Edessene school by Rabu- 
las drove into Persia a scholar named Barsumas, 
to whom the foundation of Persian Nestorianism 
was specially due. He obtained the bishopric of 
Nisibis in 435, and continued to hold the see for 
fifty-four years, till his death in 489. He there 
established a flourishing school, which was 
largely increased and strengthened by the final 
dissolution of the Edessene school by the em- 
peror Zeno in a.d. 489, on account of its incor- 
rigible Nestorianism. The Nestorians, indeed, 
devoted themselves in those early times to educa- 
tion, and established other flourishing schools at 
Seleucia and many other places, as fully described 
by Asseman. iv. cap. xr. sec. ii. p. 924 ; cf. sec 
iv. p. 937, where the very liberal course of study 
pursued therein is set forth. By his age 
and learning Barsumas obtained immense in- 
fluence even over the kings of Persia. He 
cleverly used their political jealousies to advance 
his own party. He represented that the Catho- 
lic party were the friends and spies of the 
Roman power, while he and his friends were 
persecuted by it, and therefore necessarily hostile. 
The Nestorian sect rapidly consolidated itself in 
Persia, by conforming more or less to the ideas 
and prejudices of the Persians. The Zoroastrians 
specially abhorred celibacy and the monks. In 
fact they taught and practised incest in its 
worst forms, permitting the marriage of the 
nearest relations, as of a brother and sister, or of 
n son and his mother. In 499 a synod was held 
by the Nestorians under Babaeus, the metropoli- 
tan of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, at which clerical 
celibacy was abolished, and the clergy of all 
ranks up to the bishops themselves permitted to 
innrry. The Nestorian sect rapidly extended it- 
self into all the lands south and east and north of 
Persia. Cosmas Indicopleustes (cf. s. o. 1. 1, p. 
693) is a sufficient witness to this fact in the 6th 
century. His narrative, compiled about a.d. 547, 
proves that within half a century the Nestorians 
had organised churches in India and Ceylon, 
whose bishops acknowledged the jurisdiction of 
the archbishop of Seleucia. They had also diffused 
the gospel among the Bactrians, Huns, Arme- 
nians, Medea and Elamites. They gained a firm 
hold, too, upon the Tartars and Chinese. A 
monument describing their progress in China 
was discovered at Siganfu by the Jesuits. It 
described their first mission to China in A.D. 636, 
and related its history till the current year, a.d. 
781, or, as the monument calls it 1092, of the era 
of the Greeks. This inscription has been the 
subject of much controversy, rather however, as 
Milman puts it, " from hatred to the Jesuits by 
whom it was made known " than from any other 
motive. The arguments on either side can be 
seen in E. Renaudot, Relat. Ancienn. des Indes, 
p. 228-271, Paris, 1718 ; Asseman. Sibl. Orient. 
iv. 502-552 ; M(m. de FAcad. des Ins. xxx. 802- 
819 ; Gibbon, cap. xlvii. note 118, ed. Milman ; 
Remusat, Melancf. Asiat. i. 33 ; Schmidt, Gesck. 
der Ost Mongolen, p. 384. This last denies that 
there is any satisfactory proof that this monu- 
ment was ever found in China. He declares that 
it was manufactured in Europe by the Jesuits, 
but does not explain how it could benefit the 
Jesuits to invent a monument which only re- 
dounds to the credit of Oriental heretics ; as 
Mosheim has well remarked in his learned note 
on this inscription (H. E. cent. vii. par. i. cap. i.). 


Cf. tor latest discussions of it, Gibbings's edit, of 
Mosheim's Mem. of Church in China, Dub. 1862; 
Neumann, Zeitsch. der deutsch. Morgenland. Ge- 
sellsch. iv. 38 (1850) ; Renan, Bist. Lang. Semit. p. 
282. These last two writers are dubious about it. 
We meet with rather a curious account of Nesto- 
rianism as it existed in Central Asia in the 10th 
century in Albiruni's Chronology of Ancient Na- 
tions, p. 306, whose importance as a historian has 
been already pointed out (t. iii. p. 794). He lived 
at Khiva between a.d. 973-1048. In his account 
of the Nestorians he dwells on their intellectual 
activity as a specially notable feature distin- 
guishing them from the Catholic party. The 
original tone imparted by Theodore and the 
great Syriac writers at once struck the acute Ma- 
hometan. " Nestorius," he says, " instigated people 
to examine for themselves, and to use the instru- 
ments of logic and analogy in meeting their 
opponents." He gives us some very curious de- 
tails about their feasts and ritual. He noticed 
that Nestorians and Melchites, as he calls the 
orthodox party, agreed about the observance of 
Lent, Christmas and Epiphany, but disagreed 
about other feasts and fasts. The Nestorians 
evidently retained, or perhaps adopted, some 
Jewish ideas from the great Jewish schools ic 
Babylonia. OnthefeastofMa'al'tha(Ingressus), 
Alblrftnt tells us, they wandered from the naves 
of their churches up to their roofs in memory 
of the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem. 
According to this writer the majority of the 
inhabitants of Syria, 'Irak and Khurasan were 
Nestorians, their catholicus being appointed by 
the khalif on the nomination of the leaders of the 
sect. The direct influence of Nestorianism on the 
West was not very great. During the 6th and 
following centuries they seem to have followed 
closely in the train of the Persian and Saracen 
invasions of the empire, till under the khalifs 
their hierarchy extended from China to Cyprus 
and Jerusalem. A considerable Nestorian ele- 
ment, indeed, continued to exist in the leading 
cities of the empire, notwithstanding the sever* 
edicts of Theodosius and succeeding emperors. 
In A.D. 433, on the death of his intruding suc- 
cessor, the friends and partisans of Nestorius 
were numerous enough in Constantinople to 
raise a riot demanding his restoration, while 
again in the next century we find that Cosmas 
Indicopleustes, to whom we have referred, was a 
Nestorian at Alexandria (La Crose, Christianismr 
des Indus, i. 40-55 ; Asseman. 1. c. iv. 605, 606). 
Tillemont, indeed, discovers traces of it in the 
empire till the close of the 6th cent. {Mem. 
t. xiv. p. 615 sqq.) But indirectly Nestorianism 
has had a considerable intellectual influence on 
the West through the controversy about the 
three chapters and the writings of JuNir.ius 
and FACUNDr/8 in the 6th century (cf. Kihny 
Theodor von Mopsuestia, Freiburg, 1880). Th» 
leading dogma of Nestorianism was revived in a 
modified shape by the Adoptionists of Spain (cC 
vol. I. p. 44 and Felix of Urgel ; Neander, 
H. E. v. 218. 

Literature. — The most exhaustive work on 
Nestorianism, ancient and modern alike, is 
Asseman. Biblioth. Oriental, t. iv. This -volume, 
of 950 pp., is occupied with this subject alone. 
It collects information from all quarters, espe- 
cially from the Oriental writers, concerning their 
history, ritual, organisation, schools and mis- 

Digitized by 



siane. In other volnmes of the same work 
Assemani gives more information on the same 
subject, cf. tip. 203, t. iii. 64-70, 378-395, 
396-410, 580-589 ; and t. it. 387-163 for an 
elaborate catalogue of the patriarchs of the Nes- 
torians (cf. Le Quien, Orient Christ, ii. 1078- 
1341). These two works bring down their history 
to the last century. The original documents 
concerning the councils of Ephesus, and the 
ether councils and synods held in connexion 
therewith, will be found in Mansi (Condi, tt. it., 
t. and vi.y There is a careful statement of the 
history in Natalia Alexander (H. E. saec. v. cap. 
iii. art. 12, p. 56-64, ed. Mansi), and an exhaus- 
tive monograph in Hefele's Councils, lib. ix., 
which will be found in the third vol. of Clark's 
translation of that work. Among the most 
recent works on the subject are Badger's 
Jig$iorian$ and their Ritual, London, 1852; 
Kenan, Mist. Lang. Semit., very useful upon the 
spread of Syriac through Nestorion agencies, 
p. 277 passim ; Mosheim's Authentic Memoirs of 
Christian Church in China, ed. R. Gibbings, B.D., 
Dublin, 1862 ; Georgius Ebedjesu Khajjath, 
Bi/ri Orientales seu Chalaaei Nestoriani et 
Soman. Pontiff. Primatus, Rom. 1870; Peter- 
mann's art. Kestorians, in new ed. of Herzog's 
&eal-Bncychp. [G. T. S.] 

KE8TOBIANTJS, a Greek historian, who 
flourished a.D. 474. He wrote the lives of the 
Roman emperors to the death of Leo the 
younger. He is cited by John Malalaa, who 
calls him the wisest of the chronographers. 
Garnerius in his preface to Liberatus, Num. 11, 
makes him the same as Nestorius bishop of 
PhragotMs [Nestorius (4)], but, as Cave 
thinks, on the most flimsy grounds. (Cave, 
HM. Lit. L 454.) [G. T. 8.] 

NESTORIUS (1). ST. (Nestor), Feb. 26, 
the first known bishop of Side in Pampbylia 
Prima, one MS. calling him, but incorrectly, 
bishop of Perga (Le Quien, i. 997). He was a 
martyr in the Decian persecution, A.D. 250, 
under a president variously called Publius, 
Pollion, or Polius. His Acts in a Latin version 
hare long been known. They are given in a 
concise shape in Ado's martyrology; and in a 
longer shape in AA. SS. Boll. Feb. iii. 627. He 
is also commemorated in Martyr. Vet. Bom. and 
Canard. The acts have been hitherto considered 
worthless. Aube, however, discovered the 
original Greek Acts in a MS. of the National 
Library at Paris, which he printed in the Revue 
Archiiogique for April, 1884, pp. 215-234, to- 
gether with the Latin version and an elaborate 
commentary. He was arrested by the local 
Irenarch, required to sacrifice, and on his 
refusal despatched in charge of two lictors 
to the court of the president Pollio, who 
tortured and then crucified him. The martyr's 
answer to the president's queries sufficiently 
indicate his theological position. Pollio said 
to him, "Are you willing to take part with 
as or with Christ ? " To which Nestor replied, 
" Cum Christo meo et eram, et sum, et ero ;" 
to which the indignant president replied that 
as he was devoted to Jesus who was crucified 
under Pontius Pilate, he should be crucified 
like his God. The acts fix even the day and hour 
ef Jus martyrdom; it happened on the fifth day 



of the week at the third hour. Le Blunt, in his 
Actes des Martyrs, p. 46, points out the accuracy 
of the details. [G. T. 8.] 

NESTORIUS (2) (Nestor), prefect of Egypt 
in 349 (Athan. Ap. c. Ar. § 56. Hist. Ar. § 23, 
Fit. Ant. § 86 ; Tillem. viii. 122, 125, 135). 


NESTORIUS (8), patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, A.D. 428-431. He was a native of 
Germadicia, the birthplace of Leo the Isauriau 
and Iconoclast some three centuries later. He 
became a monk of the convent of St. Euprepius 
near the gates of Antioch, where he attained 
great popularity as a preacher, having a fine 
voice and a great reputation for ascetic holiness. 
He was very diligent as a student of theology, 
so that on one occasion he even denounced somo 
expressions of Theodore of Mopsuestia as unortho- 
dox, though in general he was a devoted adherent 
of the system taught by Theodore and Diodore of 
Tarsus. After the death of Sisinnius, the church 
of Constantinople was so divided into opposing 
factions that the emperor resolved that none of 
that church should fill the vacant see ; he there- 
fore promoted Nestorius to the post, hoping that 
his eloquence would be useful in the instruction 
and guidance of the people. He was consecrated 
on April 10, 428, more than three months after 
the death of Sisinnius, which had happened on 
Dec. 24 of the preceding year. His first sermon 
proved him to be of a fierce and intolerant spirit. 
Addressing the emperor, he said, " Give me, my 
prince, the earth purged of heretics, and I will 
give you heaven as a. recompense. Assist me in 
destroying heretics, and I will assist you in van- 
quishing the Persians." He proceeded at once 
to put his intolerant views into practice. Five 
days after his consecration he demolished a private 
oratory used by the Arian community ; an act 
which caused a conflagration, for when the 
Arians saw the work of destruction going for- 
ward, they set fire to the building, which, 
spreading on nil sides, reduced many other 
buildings to ashes. He next assailed the Nova- 
tians, being jealous of the reputation for piety 
enjoyed by Paul their bishop. The emperor, 
however, would not allow them to be persecuted. 
He attacked the Quartodecimans in Asia, Lydia, 
and Caria, causing fearful riots and loss of life 
at Miletus and Sard is. His example proved 
contagious. Antony, bishop of a city of the 
Hellespont, began to persecute the Macedo- 
nians with such violence that two of that sect 
assassinated him. This increased the rage of 
Nestorius, who immediately deprived them of 
their churches at Constantinople, and throughout 
his whole province. In this course of action he 
was ably seconded by a presbyter, Anastasius, 
whom he had brought with him from Antioch to 
assist in the management of his diocese. This 
man was an extreme adherent of the Syrian 
school of theology, and his preaching first raised 
the controversy which proved fata) to Nestorius. 
Anastasius was intolerant of all opposition to his 
views. Apollinarian dogmas were specially 
repugnant to his school, to which heresy the 
popular theology of Constantinople seemed to 
him to incline. He therefore assailed it in a 
controversial sermon, in which he said, " Let no 
man call Mary Theotocos ; for Mary was but 


Digitized by 




s woman, and it is impossible that God should 
be born of a woman ;" a statement which caused 
great excitement, especially when endorsed and 
defended by the patriarch himself in a series of 
set discourses. The further history, however, of 
this controversy most be sought in the article 
Nbstorianism and the references there given. 
We shall here confine ourselves to the events of 
his personal life. After the council of Ephesus, 
Nestorius was deposed from his bishopric by the 
emperor's authority. Socrates indeed, who takes 
a very moderate and dispassionate view of Nes- 
torius, tells us (Zf. E. vii. 34) that when he 
found his cause hopeless, he cried out in bitter 
regret, " Let Mary be called Theotocos, if you 
will, and let all disputing cease." His regrets, 
however, availed him nothing. His friends fell 
off on every side, even including John of An- 
tioch, who had stoutly supported him. He was 
banished first to his former monastery of St. 
Euprepius, near Antioch. John of Antioch, 
however, felt his presence near his episcopal 
seat a reproach to his own inconsistency, so, 
After a lapse of four years (Evag. i. 7), John 
prayed for his exile to some more distant place, 
whereupon he was sent to the Oasis of Ptole- 
mais, whither the worst criminals were usually 
transported, and exposed to the attacks of the 
nomadic Arabs or Ethiopians who, under the 
name of Blemmyes, were known as the most 
formidable enemies of the Roman power in 
North Africa. He occupied himself in the pre- 
paration of a defence of his conduct, and his 
doctrines, addressed according, to Evagrius, 
■{I. c.) to a certain Egyptian. He was captured 
after some years by the Blemmyes, and liberated 
in the Thebaid, whence he addressed pitiful 
supplications to the governor of the locality, 
extracts from which are given by Evagrius. 
He was then re-arrested, dragged hither and 
thither, and finally died of his ill-treatment, 
though ecclesiastical bitterness represents 
that " when his tongue had been eaten 
through with worms, he departed to the 
greater and everlasting judgment" (Evag. 
I. ft). He died some time subsequent to A.D. 
439, for he was yet alive when Socrates wrote 
his history. E. Revillout, in a mem. on the 
Blemmyes read before the Acad, des Inscrip. 
and published in their Mem. t. viii. 1st Ser. 
1874, pp. 396-401, discusses his place of exile, 
his persecution by the celebrated monk Senuti, 
and the time of his death, which he fixes about 
A.D. 454. He maintains out of a Coptic MS. of 
the life of Dioscorus of Alexandria (discovered 
among the Fayum MSS., and lately printed in 
the Bevue Egyptologique, 1880-1883, cf. Kriiger's 
Monoph. Streitigk. p. 12 sqq. Jena, 1884), that 
Nestorius was summoned to the Fourth General 
Council, but died before the summons reached 
him ; a view which gains some support from 
Evagrius H. E. ii. 2. [Sendti]. The writings of 
Nestorius were consigned to the flames by an 
edict of Theodosius ; they were therefore dili- 
gently extirpated by the magistrates (cf. Jac. 
Uretser, de jure prohibendi libros malos, lib. i. 
cap. 9); while a passage in John Moschus 
(Spirit. Prat. c. 46) proves that the clergy 
were not backward in the work of destruc- 
tion [Hesvchiub (26)]. We have therefore 
almost none of his writings, save what have 
been preserved in the replies of his adversaries. 


His principal works seem to have been— a treatise, 
De Znat'-natione Domini, which contained sixty- 
two passages of scripture, interpreted according 
to his system ; a volume of sermons arranged in 
the order of the alphabet, and his apology com- 
posed in Egypt (cf. Gennadius, de Vir IltunL, cap. 
53). An accurate statement, however, of all his 
admitted and dubious writings is contained in 
Fabricius Bib. Qraec. ed. Hai-les, t. x. p. 529- 
549. The liturgy attributed to him will be 
found in Eus. Renaudot, Litwrg. Orient. Collect. 
t. i. 

The tomb of Nestorius continued to be for 
ages a subject of interest to the Persian Nesto- 
rians. Asseman. Bib. Orient, i. ii. p. 316, tells 
us how incensed they were in the year 805, 
when they heard that his tomb was subjected to 
insults in Egypt. A certain historian, Gabriel, 
physician to the Khalif, used his master's in- 
fluence, and obtained a letter demanding from 
the ruler of Egypt possession of the sacred relics. 
The Nestorians were, however, appeased by a 
hermit of their sect, who assured them that the 
tomb which had been insulted was not really 
that of Nestorius ; and that Nestorius was like 
Moses in this respect, no man knew of his real 
sepulchre. The original authorities for his life 
have been all quoted, either in this article, or in 
that on Nestorianism. For a convenient sum- 
mary of his life and list of his reputed writings, 
see Ceillier, t. viii. 366-374. Fabricius (i. c) 
gives six reasons assigned by Nestorius justifying 
the imprecatory psalms, as published by Scipio 
Maffeus from a Catena inedita ad Ptalm. xxxir. 
They are these— (1) To make David's adversaries 
better through affliction. (2) To secure their 
eternal good through present afflictions. (3) To 
edify and instruct others. (4) To remove evil- 
doers from the earth and thus benefit society. 

(5) To warn others by fear of like punishments. 

(6) To prevent atheism and manifest a pro- 
vidence. [G. T. S.] 

NESTORIUS (4), bishop of Phragones in 
Egypt, a prelate of orthodox convictions at the 
time of the Eutychian controversy. He attended 
the council of Chalcedon and subscribed the con- 
demnation of Nestorius ; assisted at the election 
of Proterius to the see of Alexandria, a.d. 452 
(Liberatus, Breviarium, cap. xiv.) ; carried a 
letter of Proterius to Leo the Great at Borne, 
A.D. 454 (Leonis Epp. exxix. cap. 1), and an 
accompanying letter of the emperor Marcian 
(Leon. Epp. exxx. cap. 1). Afterwards, in 458, 
fled, with other bishops and clerics, to Constanti- 
nople, to escape the persecution of Timothens 
Aelurus (q. v.). Leo addressed to them there a 
letter of commendation and encouragement. 
(Ep. clx. and see Le Quien, Orient Christianas, ii. 
p. 566.) [a G.] 

NESTORIUS (5), addressed by Theodoret, 
Ep. 172. [C. H.] 

NESTORIUS (6). fourteenth Nestorian 
bishop of Ailjabene (called also Hazza and Arbela) 
on the Tigris, a.d. 800. (Assem. BiU. Or. iii. 
492 ; Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 1232.) [J. G.] 



Digitized by 



NETRAS. [Naththas.] 

NICAE AS of Romaciaoa. [Nicetas (3).] 

NICANDER (1) (N.WSpot), an exceptor, 
advised by Nilus (lib. ii. ep. 148 in Pat. Lat. 
lxxix.) to take no heed to works of magic and 
•enary. re. B -j 

NICANDER (2% a stylite to whom Nilus 
(lib. u. epp. 114, 115) addressed the warning 
text, "He that exalteth himself shall be abased." 
[XlUJg ( ).] But Tillemont doubts, on chro- 
nological and other grounds, if these letters 
could hare been written by St. Nilns. (Tillem. 
liv. 214 ; xv. 362, 365.) [C. H.] 

NICANDER (8), martyr in Moesia. [Mar- 
tiaxus (23) in D. C. A.2 

NICARETE (NwopeVT,), a lady belonging to 
one of the noblest and richest families of Nico- 
media, who devoted herself to perpetual virginity 
in connection with the church of Constantinople. 
She was warmly attached to Chrysostom, and 
wss punished for her devotion to' his cause by 
the confiscation of the greater part of her 
property in the troubles that followed his expul- 
sion. She was at this time advanced in life, and 
had a large household dependent on her, bnt 
she managed her lessened resources with such 
wise economy that she not only had enough for 
their wants and her own, but also to give 
Urgely to the poor. She was skilled in the com- 
[wandfng of medicines, often succeeding in curing 
those who had derived no benefit from regular 
physicians. Her humility and self-distrust were 
such that she would never become a deaconess, 
sad declined the office of lady superior of the 
consecrated virgins which was earnestly pressed 
en her by Chrysostom himself. She retired from 
Constantinople to avoid the persecution in 404 
aj>. (Soz. H. E. viu. 23> She is commemorated 
«o December 27. n£. V.] 

NICABBTUS (1) (Niwdoeroj), reproved by 
Xilos (lib. ii. 284 in Pat. Lot. lxxix.) for fre- 
questing the theatre. [C. H.] 

NICARETUS (2), a scriniarius addressed 
by Kilus (lib. i. ep. 231) on the overwhelming 
nature of sorrow when left without aid and 

«r m P»* n r- [C. h.] 

NICASIUS (1), reputed first bishop of 
R«uen, ordained by St. Dionysius of Paris cir. 
IM, but more probably a presbyter, martyred 
in the Vexin. (Gall. Chr.xi.i-, cf. Tillem. iv. 
" i85 -) * [C. H.] 



NICEA, NICAEA, martyr. [Galonica.] 

NICEAS of Romaciana. [Nicetas (3).] 

NICEAS (1), subdeacon of Aquilcia ad- 
dressed by St. Jerome in 375 or 376 {Ep. 8 in 
Pat. Lat. xxii. 341, and note ; Tillem. xii. 11, 13, 
xv. 817; Ceill. vii. 582). He is sometimes 
identified with the Nicetas praised by Paulinus. 
[Nicetas (3).] [ C . h.] 

NICEAS (2) (N«*'as), a Christian charioteer 
at Neapolis (Sichem) in 529, when Julian, re- 
cently crowned by the Samaritans [Juuanus 
(110)], celebrated the Circenses in that town 
Niceas carried off the first prize, and on present- 
ing himself to receive it was asked by Julian of 
what religion he was. He avowed himself a 
Christian and was executed on the siwrt. (Joan 
Malal. pt. ii. p. 180, Oxon.) [T. W. R] 

NICENTTUS, mentioned by Ambrose {Ep. 
v. 8), with reference to the affair of Indicia, as 
an ex-tribune and notary who had ordered a 
slave girl to be examined by a midwife on a 
charge of unchastity. A story is told of him 
by Paulinus in his life of Ambrose (§ 44). He 
suffered from gout in the feet; and when once, 
on approaching the altar to receive the sacra- 
ment, he was accidentally kicked by Ambrose, 
the pain made him cry out. Ambrose there- 
upon said to him, "Go, and thou shalt straight- 
way be whole." That he never suffered again, 
he testified with tears at the time of Ambrose's 
death - [J. LI. D.] 

NICEPHORUS (1) (NiceforUs, Hartel), 
Roman acolyte, a.d. 251, went to Rome with 
Mettiub (Cyp. Ep. 45) and took from Cornelius 
to Cyprian the news of the accession to the side 
of the former by Noratianizing confessors 
[Maximus (7)], and of the sailing for Carthage of 
Novatian's second batch of emissaries. (Cyp 
Ep. 49, 52.) [E. W. Rj 

NICEPHORUS (2% Feb. 25, martyr in 
Egypt, with six others, under the emperor Nume- 
rianus and the governor Sabinus. They belonged 
to Corinth, where they confessed the faith in the 
Decian persecution before the proconsul Tertius. 
(Asseman. AA. MM. Orient, et Occident, t ii p' 
60 ; Ceill. ii. p. 464.) [G. T S] 

NICASIt T S (2) (Necasius), a bishop in Pro- 
consular Africa, designated " Culcitanus," at 
the council of Carthage in 348. At his sugges- 
tion it was enacted in the sixth canon that the 
clergy should not act in the capacity of stewards 
and legal directors in families. (Mansi, iii. 147, 
155 ; iforcelli, i. 148.) [C. H.] 

NICASIUS (8), Dec. 14, eleventh bishop of 
Kheims, slain by the Vandals in 407, with his 
niter Eutropia." (Klodoard, Hist. Eccl. Rem. i. 
6, 7, ii 5, § 27, 6 in Put. Lat. exxxv. 36, 40, 42, 
105, 106 ; Hart. Usuard. ; Gall. Ckr. ix. 6, 203 ; 
Tillem. x. 463.) [C. H.] 

NICEPHORUS (3), Feb. 9, martyr at An- 
tioch about tbe year 260, under the emperor 
Valerian. His story is a very interesting one. 
He was an intimate friend of a Christian priest 
called Sapricius, but they had a quarrel. Nice- 
phorns sought in every way to bring about a 
reconciliation, but Sapricius was inexorable. 
The persecution after a time waxed very hot. 
Sapricius was arrested, endured torture, and was 
condemned to die by the sword. Nicephorus 
again sought his favour, and was again refused. 
Thereupon God withdrew the grace of constancy, 
which Sapricius hod hitherto possessed. He 
consented to sacrifice, notwithstanding the en- 
treaties of Nicephorus, who at once took his 
place, and suffered death for Christ. (Ruinart, 
Acta Smcera, p. 244 ; Ceill. ii. 392.) [G. T. S.] 

D 2 
Digitized by VjOOQlC 



NICEPHORUS (4), praised by Nilus Q\b. 
ii. ep. 183 ; Tillem. x. 353). [C. H.] 

NICEPHORUS (5), of Antioch, surnamcd 
the Heavenly, on account of his eloquence. He 
was also called Marylarpos, a title equivalent to 
Professor. Cf. Soiceri Thesaur. s. v. Mayiartpuf 
vis. The surname Malalas belonging to John of 
Antioch seems to have had much the same 
meaning. [Malalas.] His only extant work is 
the Life of Symeon Stylites, Jr., which wil! be 
found in Migne, P. 0. t. lxxxvi. Pars Posterior, 
col. 2984. Nicephorus Callist. (H. E. xviii. 24) 
says that Simeon's life was written by another 
'Svp*uvi fiayltrrpcp r$ Ovv$. This last word 
seems a contraction for ifiuvvpsp. [G. T. S.] 

NICEPHORUS (6), a presbyter of St. Sophia 
in C. P., A.D. 480, who wrote the life of a fanatic 
lamed Andrew, who pretended to be a fool for 
Christ's sake. He lived under Zeno the Isaurian. 
The MS. is extant in the Imperial Library of 
Vienna. (Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 456.) [G. T. S.] 

NICEPHORUS (7), bishop of Sebaste in 
Armenia, exiled by the emperor Justin in 518. 
(Assem. B. 0. t. ii. Dissert, de Monoph. num. 2 ; 
Le Quien, Or. Chr. I 425.) [C. H.] 

NICEPHORUS (8) I., emperor, was de- 
scended from an Arabian king, who had become a 
Christian, and had fled to Constantinople in the 
reign of Heraclius. He held the office of grand 
logothete or treasurer under the empress Irene. 
In A.D. 802 a conspiracy to place him on the 
throne was formed by some of the great officers 
of the palace, who were displeased at the ascend- 
ency the eunuch Aetius had acquired over the 
empress. On the night of October 31st, the con- 
spirators seized the palace, pretending that it 
was by Irene's orders that Nicephorus was pro- 
claimed emperor. Guards were placed round 
the palace of Eleutherius where the empress was, 
and at dawn she was removed to the palace and 
placed in confinement. Nicephorus was then 
crowned at Saint Sophia. The next day he had 
an interview with his dethroned mistress ; and, 
by promising that she shonld be kindly treated, 
and professing that he had been forced to ascend 
the throne against his will, persuaded her to dis- 
close where the imperial treasures were con- 
cealed. Having thus attained his object, he 
banished her first to the island of Prinkipo and 
then to Lesbos, where she died in the following 
August [Ikkne II. vol. iii. p. 285]. 

The early years of his reign were troubled 
by rebellion at home and war abroad. He refused 
on his accession to continue the tribute which 
Irene had paid to Haroun al Raschid. The 
indignant caliph invaded Asia Minor and at- 
tacked Heraclea. The army which had been sent 
against him revolted in July, proclaimed their 
commonder, the patrician Bardanes, emperor 
against his will, and advanced on Chrysopolis. 
The citizens refusing to admit him he withdrew, 
and obtaining from Nicephorus an amnesty for 
himself and his adherents, guaranteed by the 
patriarch and all the nobles, he retired in Septem- 
ber to the island of Prote, where he assumed the 
monastic habit. Nicephorus in violation of his 
promise confiscated his property, banished his 
chief adherent!, and deprived his troops of their 


pay. Bardanes, the following year, was blinded 
by some Lycaonian brigands who had made a 
descent on the island ; and it was suspected that 
the emperor was implicated in the crime. 
Nicephorus, in consequence of this rebellion, was 
obliged to make peace with the caliph, but broke 
it as soon as the latter had retreated. The 
Arabs, however, recrossed Mount Taurus in the 
middle of winter, and in the August of a.d. 804, 
Nicephorus, who had taken the command in 
person, was defeated with heavy loss at Crasns 
in Phrygia, by Djabril Ibn Jahja, having a 
narrow escape of being made prisoner himself. 
An armistice followed, which was violated the 
next year by the emperor rebuilding Ancyra and 
some other fortresses, and making incursions into 
Syria. In A.D. 806, Hnroun, who had been en- 
gaged the previous year in Persia, again invaded 
Asia Minor at the head of 300,000 men. He 
built a mosque at Tyana as a token of its 
annexation to his dominions, ravaged the whole 
country, and took several strong places. Nice- 
phorus was obliged to sue for peace, which he 
obtained on condition of paying an annual tribute 
of 30,000 pieces of gold, and three in addition as 
a personal tribute from himself, and the same 
from his son. This peace was again violated by 
the Greeks rebuilding the demolished fortresses, 
and defeating two Arabian armies near Tarsus. 
The Arabs retaliated by another invasion, by 
ravaging Cyprus, and, in September A.D. 807, 
Rhodes. (Weil, Gesc/iichtt tier Chalifen, ii. 158- 

To strengthen himself at home, Nicephorus had 
his son Stauracius crowned in Saint Sophia in 
December A.D. 803, and four years later selected 
as his wife Theophano, a relation of the deposed 
empress, though she was already betrothed to 
another man. 

In February A.D. 806, the patriarch Tarasius 
died ; and Nicephorus seems to have taken con- 
siderable pains to choose a fitting successor 
(Ignatius, Vita S. Jficephori 21, in Migne. 
P.itr. Qraec. c. 64.) He finally selected his 
namesake, Nicephorus, who was still a lay- 
man. The new patriarch was forbidden to hold 
any communication with the pope, whom the 
emperor regarded as the adherent of his rival, 
Charlemagne (Theophanes, 419 in Patr. Oraeca, 
cviii. 993). The same year a synod wss held, in 
which the oeconomus Josephcs (30), who. 
had been degraded from the priesthood for 
having celebrated the marriage of Constan- 
tino and Theodote, was, at the instigation 
of the emperor, restored. (Michael, Vita 
S. TKeodori Studitae, 43, 44 ; S. Theod. Stud. 
Epp. xxxiii. in Patr. Qraec. xcix. 156, 1017.) 
Theodore, abbat of Studium, and his brother 
Joseph withdrew from communion with the 
patriarch. Their conduct soon attracted notice. 
The emperor had been previously inclined to> 
expel them from Constantinople, because they 
had opposed the appointment of Nicephorus on 
the ground of his being a layman, and he had only 
been dissuaded by representations of the odium 
that would be caused by the banishment of 700 
monks and the destruction of so famous a 
monastery, and he now took advantage of his 
opportunity. In January a.d. 809 a synod was 
convened, by which Theodore and Joseph, with the 
recluse Plato and ten other monks, who adhered 
to them, were banished from Constantinople 

Digitized by 



Tin tame synod declared that emperors were 
•bore the divine law, and asserted that each 
bishop had the power of granting dispensations 
from the canons (S. Theodor. Stud. Epp. xxxiii.). 

In February a.d. 808, a conspiracy of many 
influential persons was formed to place the 
quaestor Arsaber on the throne. The plot was 
detected by Nicephorus, who compelled Arsaber 
to become a monk and banished him to Bithynia, 
' ud punished his supporters with corporal 
punishment, banishment, and confiscation of 
their property, not sparing certain bishops and 
monks, and the syncellus, sacristan, and librarian 
of Saint Sophia, who were among the con- 

la a.d. 809 we first hear of Bulgarian inroads. 
in the spring of that year their king Crumn took 
Sardica. Nicephorus marched against him, de- 
i daring that he would keep his Easter in his 
palace. His hopes were frustrated by a dangerous 
emtio;' in the army, which was with difficulty 
appeased. The following winter he caused 
oilitarj colonies to be planted on the Bulgarian 
frontier, a measure which, according to Theo- 
poaaes, occasioned much discontent. In October 
a-D. 810 he had a narrow escape from a mad 
oonk who attacked him with a sword. 
» In May a.d. 81 1 he again, with his son Staura- 
das, took the field against the Bulgarians. He 
atered their territory on July 20th, and 
appears to hare been at first successful and to 
uve taken the palace of Crumn himself. The 
account of what follows is very obscure ; we hear 
<£ desertions to the Bulgarians, who at last 
aurounded the whole Roman army, and finally 
attacked at dawn on the 25th. They were 
completely successful, Nicephorus himself was 
tilled, his son mortally wounded, and the greater 
part of the officers and soldiers perished. The 
, tod of Nicephorus was exposed on a pole for 
tone days, and the skull was mounted in silver 
a a drinking cup, and preserved in the royal 
family of Bulgaria. 

His relations with the West may be briefly 
noticed. At the deposition of Irene, ambassadors 
own Charlemagne were at Constantinople, who 
iad come to negotiate a reunion of the Eastern 
«m1 Western empires by means of a marriage of 
their sovereigns. On their return they were 
' actompanied by ambassadors from Nicephorus, 
who concluded a treaty with Charlemagne on 
tac banks of the Saal, by which Venice and the 
does of the Dalmatian coast were left to the 
Ustem empire. Notwithstanding this treaty, 
attempts on the Dalmatian towns in A.D. 80(3, 
aad one on Venice in a.d. 808, the latter under 
the command of Pippin king of Italy in person, 
ate mentioned. The fleets of the Eastern empire, 
commanded in the former year by the patrician 
iicetas, and in the latter by Paul the governor 
«f Cephalonia, seem to have successfully re- 
puted these attacks, and in a.d. 810 a new treaty 
»aa concluded between Nicephorus and Charle- 
nagne. (Eiahard, Annalei in Pair. Lat. cir. 
443-473; A. Dandolo. CAron. in Muratori, 
br. Intl. Scr. xii. 151-158.) 

Nicepherua appears to have been a skilful 
tbeogh rapacious financier. A list of his chief 
financial measures is given by Theophanes (411, 
412). The only one that need be noticed here 
i< his extending the hearth-tax to monasteries 
and charitable institutions, and making it retro- 



spective to the first year of his reign. He also 
quartered his officers in bishops' residences and 
in monasteries, and blaming those who had 
dedicated gold or silver in churches, declared 
that church property ought to be applied for 
the service of the state. He favoured the 
Paulicians and Athingans who lived in Phrygia 
and Lycaonia, and is accused of having had 
recourse to their divinations. (Theophanes, Chron. 
402-416; G. Cedrenus, 829-843 in Patr. Or. 
exxi. 912-928 ; Zonaras,iv. 13-15 in Patr. Graec. 
exxxiv. 1352-1361 ; Finlay ii. 92-107.) [F. D.] 

NICETA, martyr. See Galonica. 

NICETAS (1), legendary brother of Clement 
of Rome {Sec. vii., Horn. xiii.). [G. S.] 

NICETAS (2), the father of Herodes the 
Irenarch (Euseb. H. E. iv. 15). [G. S.] 

NICETAS (8) (Nicaeas, Niceas, Nicias), 
bishop of Romaciana or Remetiana in Dacia, a 
place which is identified in an article on Bul- 
garian topography by Professor Tomaschek, of 
Graz, in the SUitmgsberichte der Wiener Akad. 
1881-82, t. xcix. p. 441. Our knowledge of 
him is derived from tho epistles and poems 
of Paulinus of Nola, whom he visited, a.d. 398 
and 402, and who has devoted to him two 
poems (Nos. 17 and 24), composed for the feast 
of St. Felix. He was probably a native of Dacia, 
and may have been the Nicias, or Nicaeas, sub- 
deacon of Aquileia, to whom St. Jerome wrote 
(Hieron., Ep. 42 (or 8) ap. Migne, Pat. Lat. xxii. 
341), yet many doubt it. He evangelized the 
Scythae, Getae, Daci, Bessi, and Riphaei, but 
settled specially among tho Daci, reducing the 
wild manners of the barbarians to meekness and 
honesty. He was noted for eloquence and learn- 
ing, honoured by the Romans when he visited 
them, and specially beloved by Paulinus at Nola, 
but we cannot define the extent of his see or the 
dates of his episcopate. He is identified by 
Baronius {Mart. Horn. Jun. 22) with Nicaeas, or 
Nicetas, of Aquileia, who must, however, be 
later, A.D. 454-485 (Gams, Ser. Episa. 773; 
Cave, Hid. Lit. i. 399). The double form, 
Nicetas and Niceas, has introduced much diffi- 
culty, and has allowed the double commemora- 
tions of Jan. 7 and June 22. (Boll. Acta SS. Jan. 
i. 365 ; and Jun. iv. 243 ; Tillemont, H. E. x. 263, 
sq.; Fleurv, H. E. xxi. c 31 ; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. 
t. 458, viii. 84.) [G. T. S.] 

Gennadius {De Fir. III. c. xxii.) says he com- 
posed, in a simple and graceful style, six instruc- 
tions to neophytes, regarding their general 
conduct and the gentile errors, also "de fide 
unicae Majestatis, adversus genealogiara (or ge- 
ncthlogiain), de symbolo, de agni paschalis 
victims ; " they are all lost. Gennadius mentions 
another, "ad lapsam virginem libellum," which 
from the nature of the subject alone has been 
identified with the De Laps* Virginia consecratac, 
which is usually found attached to the works of 
St. Ambrose (Migne, Pat. Lat. xvi. 367), but 
the conjecture is unsupported by evidence, and 
many might write on the some subject. [J. G.] 

NICETAS (4), bishop of Aquileia, in 458. 
Leo the Great addressed him a letter {Ep. clix.) 
answering a number of questions he had asked 
as to the course to be pursued in certain disci- 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


plinary difficulties, arising mainly ont of the 
Hunnish invasion (eg. when a woman had mar- 
ried a second husband during the captivity of 
her first, believing him to be dead, what was to 
be done in the event of his return?) Of this 
prelate nothing further is known. He is to be 
distinguished from Aiceas, the archdeacon of 
Aquileia, to whom Jerome wrote, and who seems 
to be identical with Niceas or Nicetas, bishop of 
Komesiana in Dacia, mentioned by Gennadius, 
etc (Ughelli, Italia Sacra, vol. v. p. 24, edit. 
1720.) [C. G.] 

NICETAS (6), a commander of the imperial 
guard under Hernclius. He presented, A.D. 613, 
to the great church of Constantinople the sacred 
sponge and lance used at the crucifixion. The 
sponge was affixed to the relics of the true 
cross. (Cliron. fasch. in Migne, Pat. Graeo. t. 
xcii. col. 987-990.) About the legend of the 
sacred sponge see Willelm Tyr. lib. xx. cap. 25; 
Bondelmontius in Descript. C. P. iii. et t. iii. 
Hist. Franc, p. 343. [G. T. S.] 

NICETA8 (6), 48th patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, 78th bishop, unorthodox, A.D. 766-780, 
successor to Constantinus II. Nicetas was an 
eunuch of Sclavonic origin, presbyter of the 
church of the Holy Apostles, and was, contrary 
to canon law, consecrated by order of the emperor, 
Nov. 16. (Nicephorus puts it in August.) The 
brutal treatment of his deposed predecessor in 
767 [Constantinus II.] is a stain on Nicetas. 
In a.d. 768 Nicctas carried out some repairs 
in the great church ; and took the opportunity 
to remove some tessclated or mosaic pictures of 
Christ and the saints from a neighbouring wing 
of the patriarchal palace which was used in con- 
nection with processions and as a lodging for the 
emperors on ceremonial occasions. Nicetas died 
A.D. 780, on Feb. 6th, and was succeeded by Paul. 
(Baronius, A.D. 766-780 ; Theoph. Clironog. 369, 
370, 371, 373, 382 ; St. Niceph. Patr. C. P. 84, 
85; Floury, Hat. da Christ, xliii. 42, 49,50; 
xliv. 16, 38.) [W. M. a] 

NICETAS (7), bishop of Dadybra in Paph- 
lagonia. He was present at the seventh general 
council. He may have been the same as Nicetas 
the Paphlagonian. whose Encomia on the Apostles 
Combefis has published in his Auct. Nov. Bib. 
PP. Oraec. There is great uncertainty upon the 
whole question. (Cf. Fabr. Bib. Grace, lib. v., 
cap. v., where be is identified with a Nicetas of 
the 9th cent.) (Le Quien, Oriem Christ, i. 557.) 

[G. T. S.] 

NICETAS (8), Mar. 20, bishop of Apollo- 
nias and confessor for images (Mend. Grace. 
Sirlet.). Le Quien (L 614) believes his see to be 
the Bithynian Apol lonias, and places him next to 
Theophylact, who flourished in 787. [C. H.] 

NICETIUS (1% May 5, bishop of Vienne, 
in succession to Nectarius (Gall. Chr. rvi. 13). 
Under the year 379, and calling himNiceta, Ado 
(Chron. in Pat. Lot. exxiii. 96 a) represents him 
as an eminent upholder of the faith against the 
Arians. After Mart. Hieron. the Bollandists 
(Mai. it 9) commemorate him and Nectarius 
together on May 5. Tillemont (iii. 624) con- 
siders there is reason to make him and Nectarius 
the same person. Hefele (Councils, ii. 405) is 


inclined to identify our Nioetius with him of 874 
Nicetius ( )], and the Nicesius of 394, 6ee 
Tillem. xvt 104. [C. H.} 

NICETIUS, ex-tribune. [Nicestius.] 

NICETIUS (2), FLAVIUS, an eminent 
orator of Gaul in the time of Sidonius Apolli- 
naris (lib. viii. ep. 6 in Pal. Lat. lviii. 594 ; 
Tillem. xvi. 269, 270, 279, 749). [C. H.] 

NICETIUS (3) (Nicet, Nioessb), ST., 25th 
archbishop of Treves, between Aprunculus and 
St. Magnericus (circ A.D. 527-566), is a figure 
of some importance in the 6th century. In his 
day the bishop was already beginning to pas* 
into the baron, and the holy pope Nicetius was 
already a territorial lord (Freeman, Augusta 
Treverorwn, Histor. Essays, 3rd series, p. 111). 
Our principal knowledge of him is derived from 
Gregory of Tours, who received his information 
from St. Aredius, an abbat of Limoges, Nicetius' 
disciple ( Vitae Patrum, cap. xvii.). The story is 
that from birth he was marked out for the 
spiritual life, being born with the tonsure 
(corona clerici). As a yonth he entered a 
monastery, apparently at Limoges (r.bervinus, 
Vita S. Magnerici, i. Boll. ActaSS. Jul. vi. 183), 
and becoming, in time, abbat, shewed himself a 
strict disciplinarian, setting his face as sternly 
against idle conversation as bad actions. On the 
death of Aprunculus the clergy desired St. Gall us 
for a successor, but king Theoderic had destined 
him, by his own wish, for Clermont, and Nicetius 
was appointed (Vitae Patrum, cap. vi.). At 
Treves, his position was a difficult one. The 
Franks who surrounded him were little else 
than barbarians, rioting in the license of no 
older civilization, and scarcely more than 
nominal converts to Christianity. Their respect 
Nicetius won by personal asceticism, an inflexi- 
ble temper, and fearless demeanor in the face of 
the strong, activity in good works, and uncom- 
promising orthodoxy. Gregory says of him, on 
the authority of Aredius, " nee minitantem 
timuit, nee a blandiente delusus est" (Vitae 
Patrum, cap. xvii.). His weapon was the power 
of excommunication, and this he used freely 
agaiust princes and nobles in cases of oppression, 
or flagrant immorality (cf. Rettberg, Kircken- 
geschkhtc Dcutschlands, i. 462-4). While still an 
abbat be is said to have confronted kingTheoderic, 
and won his esteem by laying bare to him his 
wrong-doings. On his way to Treves to be con- 
secrated, he sternly rebuked his escort of nobles 
for turning their horses into the standing corn of 
the poor, and, himself, drove, them out. Theo- 
deric's successor, Theodebert, came into conflict 
with him, and some of his court were excommu- 
nicated by the bishop. Clotaire, into whose 
power Treves came in 555, was an object of 
reprobation to the church for the incestuous 
marriages he had contracted. Wearied of the 
reproofs which these and other iniquities brought 
on him, he obtained the bishop's exile by the 
judgment of a corrupt assembly of fellow-bishops. 
He was, however, restored by Slgebert after 
Clotaire's death (circ. a.d. 562), and there is 
extant a letter of warm congratulations from an 
anonymous ecclesiastic upon the event (Hoo- 
theim, Hist. Trerir. i. 40). The councils which 
he attended shew his wide-reaching activity. 
He was at Clermont in 535, at Toul in 540, at 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


Orleans in 544, at the second of Clermont a 
little later, and at Paris in 555 {Gall. Christ. 
ink 880). He also convened one himself, under 
Theodebald, about 550, at Tonl to ci nsider the 
subject of insults which had been levelled at him 
by certain persons whom, after his custom, he 
had excommunicated for contracting incestuous 
marriages. To this council relates the angry 
letter of Mapinius, bishop of Rheims, who had 
not be«n properly invited (Mansi, ix. 147-50 ; 
Patr. Irit. lxxi. 1165-6). His orthodoxy is 
illustrated by two extant letters ; one written by 
him to Clodosinda, the wife of Alboin the Lom- 
bard, urging her to torn her husband to 
Catholicism ; the other to the emperor Justinian, 
whose lapse in his latter days into a form of 
EatTchianiam, Nicetius declares, is lamented by 
all Italy, Africa, Spain, and Gaul (Pat. Lot. 
lxviii. 375-80; Hontheim, ibid. 47-51). Nicetius 
set himself to restore the churches which had 
suffered in the storms of the previous genera- 
tions, and in part rebuilt the metropolitan 
church of Treves, the foundation of which 
patriotism ascribed to Helena, the mother of 
Coostantine, though it was probably n secular 
building of the time of Valentinian and Gratian 
(Tenant- Fort. Misc. iiu 11, Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. 
134). His alterations and additions are described 
by Wiimowsky, Der Dom der Trier, p. 37 sqq., 
and Freeman, ibid. p. 113. For his own defence 
in those troublous times he built a castle on a 
lofty hill overlooking the Mosel. The walls, 
with thirty towers, stretched down to the river 
looks, and the bishop's hall, with marble 
columns, occupied the highest point (Venant. 
Fort. in. 12, Patr. Lat. ibid. 135). It is the 
first recorded building of a class which later 
ages were greatly to multiply, but its site is 
unknown (Freeman, p. 112). For his architec- 
tural undertakings he summoned workmen from 
Italy (Kufus, Epist, Hontheim, ibid. p. 37). 
The high position he made for himself is also 
evidenced by the letter of Klorianus, abbat ot 
Roman-Moutier, near Lake Como, begging his 
influence with Theodebald (Hontheim, ibid. 35-6), 
and the praises of Venantius Fortunatus (Misc. 
iii 11, Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. 134). He left nume- 
rous disciples, chief among them being St. 
Aredius ( Yrier) and St. Magnerieus, his successor. 
(Vila 8. Aridii, Patr. Lat. lxxi. 1120 ; Ebervmus, 
ibid. ; Venant. Fort. iii. 13, Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. 
137.) He died about 566, and was buried in the 
Church of St. Maximin, where his tomb still is. 
Even in Gregory's time it was famous for its 
miracles (De Glor. Conf. 94 ; Vitae Patr. xvii.). 
The day of his death is given as Dec. 5, but he 
is also commemorated Oct. 1 (Qall. Christ, xiii. 

Besides his two letters mentioned above, he 
was the author of two little treatises called De 
VigilUs sercorum Dei and De Psalmodiae Bono, 
first published by d'Achery in 1659. They are 
slight works of a didactic character, which may 
well have been written while he was still a 
monk. They are to be found in the Patr. Lat 
lxviii. 365-76, and, with the letters, are dis- 
cussed at some length by Ceilller, xl. 203-6, and 
m the Hist. Lift, de la France, iii. 294-6. The 
authorship n( the Te Deum has been erroneously 
ascribed toNlceiius, but it is older than his time. 
(Hat. Lift. iii. 294 j Tillem. xiii. 963.) 

[S. A. B.] 



NICETIUS (4) (Nizier), ST., Ap. 2, abp. 
of Lyons, between St. Sacerdos and St. Prisons 
(circ. a.d. 552-573), "vir totius sanctitatis 
egregius, castas conversationis " (Greg. Tur. 
Hist. Franc, iv. 36), and one of the few bishops 
in the West dignified with the title of '• patri- 
arch " (Md. v. 21). We possess two early 
biographies of him, one written about the year 
590, Joy a clerk of Lyons, at the bidding of 
Etherius, second occupant of the see after Nicetius, 
the other a few years later by the historian 
Gregory of Tours, whose mother was a niece 
of Nicetius, and who was himself taught by 
him in early years. Dissatisfied with the 
meagre information of the earlier life, he under- 
took to supplement it, though unfortunately he 
adds little but a string of miracles. The 
former life was first published by Chifflet and is 
also to be found in Boll. Acta US. Apr. i. 100, 
(cf. Hist. Litt. iii. 360-1). Gregory's is found in 
cap. viii. of his Vitae Patrum. A briefer account 
of him is also contained in his De Olor. Conf. 
(cap. 61) ; and he is often alluded to in the 
Hist. Franc, (iv. 36, v. 5, 21, viii. 6, and see De 
Glor. S. Julian, cap. 1). 

His father was that Florentius of senatorial 
rank, whose wife Artemia persuaded him to 
decline the bishopric of Genera, prophesying 
that the child she then bore in her womb 
was destined to be a bishop of his own flesh and 
blood [FfjOBENTiTjS (42)]. This child was called 
Nicetius " quasi victorem fcturum mundi." He 
was carefully brought up in ecclesiastical learn- 
ing, and living on in his mother's house after his 
father had died, and he had entered the ranks of 
the clergy, was not ashamed to labour with bis 
hands. At the age of thirty, he was ordained 
priest by Agricola, bishop of Chslons-sur-Sadne 
(circ. A.D. 545), and occupied himself much in 
teaching the young. Five years later St. Sacer- 
dos the archbishop of Lyons, on his death-bed 
obtained a promise from king Childebert that 
Nicetius, his nephew, should succeed him. 
[Sacerdos.] We know very little of his 
episcopate except that he presided over the 4th, 
or, as it is usually called, the 2nd council of 
Lyons, summoned by king Guntram in 566 
(Mansi, ix. 785; Ceillier, xi. 887; Hist. Litt. iii. 
386) ; that he was remarkable for his insistence 
upon the virtue of chastity, for his almsgiving, 
and for his hospitality to strangers, whose feet 
he would privily wash ; and that, while ener- 
getically building churches and houses, culti- 
vating fields and planting vineyards, he did not 
neglect the duty of prayer. 

He died in 573, and his cult was firmly 
established when his earlier biographer wrote. 
Gregory enumerates many miracles performed 
both during his life and after his death, and 
refers to a heap of fetters preserved in his 
church which had fallen from the limbs of 
captives at his tomb. The church of the 
Apostles, in which he was buried and his body 
long preserved, took his name. Troyes and the 
diocese of Tours also possessed relics of him. 
For his epitaph in verse see Gall. Christ, iv. 34, 
and Boll. Acta SS. 2 Ap. i. 95. [8. A. B.] 

NICETIUS (5), ST., archbishop of Besancon, 
between Silvester II. and St. Prothadiu?, accord- 
ing to an anonymous life to be found in Boll. 
Acta 88. 8 Feb. ii. 168-9, was contemporary with 

Digitized by 




Gregory the Great, and received from him I 
several circular epistles urging the extirpation 
of simony (none of which, however, have 
survived). He is also said to have entertained 
St. Columban when exiled from Luxeuil (circ 
A.n. 610). The supposed day of his death was ' 
Feb. 8, on which he is noticed in the Acta SS., 
but he is now commemorated Jan. 31 (Gall. 
Christ, xv. 13). He was buried in the church 
of St. Peter, which he had restored. [S. A. B.] 

NICIAS (1), the bearer of Basil's letter to 
the members of the church at Satala in 372, in- 
forming them that he had granted their request 
that a relation of his own should be sent to them 
as bishop. (Basil, Ep. 102 [183].) [E. V.] 

NICIAS (2), heretic bishop of Laodicea in 
Syria Prima, an adversary of the council of 
Chalcedon and an ally of Philoxenus of Hiera- 
polis against Flavian of Antioch (Evag. B. E. 
iii. 31 ; Le Quien, ii. 796). [C. H.] 

NICIAS (8) (NW«), a monk, who wrote (cir. 
601) against John Philoponus [Joannes (564)]. 
Photius (Cod. 50) mentions the titles of his 
treatises: Kara rSr rov 4ft\or6vov Kf<pa\aluv 
irri (mentioned in the AtarrirHjr of Philoponus) ; 
Kara tov Svo-aefrovs IcjSfywu, and Kara 'EAAVw 
\6yot Sth. (Cave, i. 573; Dupin.ii. 8, ed. 1722 ; 
Ceill. xi. 653.) [C. H.] 

NICIAS of Romaciana. [Nicetas (3).] 

NICO (IX bishop of Cyzicus, a native of 
Maples, martyred in Sicily with numerous com- 
panions in the reign of Decius. His Acta 
are very fabulous. (Boll. Acta SS. 23 Mart. iii. 
442 : he Quien, i. 749 ; Tillem. iii. 334.) 

[C. H.] 

NICO (2) (NiW), a solitary of Mount Sinai 
cir. 400, falsely accused by a woman (Apophth. 
Pal. in Cotel. Man. Eccl. Or. i. 577), thought 
by Tillemont (xiv. 191, 192) to be the Nico com- 
memorated by the Greeks on Nov. 26. [C. H.] 

NICO (8), an archimandrite addressed by 
Nilus (lib. iii. ep. 119 in Pat. Or. lxxiv.) on the 
discredit into which the monastic life had fallen. 
(Ceill. viii. 221.) [C. H.] 

NICOBULUS (1), the husband of Gregory 
Nazianzen's favourite niece Alypiana. From the 
very favourable portrait of him drawn by his 
uncle, in whose esteem he deservedly stood very 
high for his loving and dutiful attention, we 
learn that Nicobulus was a man of good birth, 
of large wealth, and considerable literary at- 
tainments, writing prose and verse with equal 
facility. His personal qualifications were as 
conspicuous as those of his mind. He was very 
tall and singularly handsome. He was a favourite 
at court, and served with much distinction in 
various campaigns, especially that against the 
Persians. His wealth, high character, and apti- 
tude for business marked him out for civil ap- 
pointments. These, however, were by no means 
to his taste, as he preferred a domestic life, with 
leisure for his literary pursuits. The pen of 
his uncle Gregory was continually employed in 
writing to one high official after another to 
obtain his excuse from duties which had been 
assigned him. In one letter he begs Olympius the 


governor of Cappadocia Secunda (c 382) to relieve 
him of the office of postmaster of the province, 
and to substitute some other less onerous charge 
(Ep. 178). In another he urges Helladios, his 
friend Basil's successor as bishop of Caesarea, to 
use his influence to get him excused from such 
duties altogether (Ep. 234). There are other 
letters of a similar character relating to Nico- 
bulus's troubles and difficulties, which it would 
be tedious to particularise (Epp. 47, 48, 107, 
160, 166, 179 ; cf. Tillemont, Mem. Exle's. ix. 
pp. 382 ft". ; 527 ff.). It was at the instance of 
Nicobulus that Gregory compiled a collection of 
his own letters (Ep. 208), and at his request he 
drew up a code of rules for letter-writing, en- 
forcing conciseness, perspicuity, and elegance, 
and, above all, naturalness ( Ep. 209). Nicobulus 
died at an early age, c. 385, leaving his wife 
encumbered with the charge of a large family 
of children, in very different circumstances from 
those she had been accustomed to, and exposed to 
the machinations of evil-disposed persons, who 
brought suits against her imperilling her pro- 
perty (Epp. 44, 45). His eldest son was named 
, after him [NioouuLUS(2)],and his eldest daughter 
after her mother. (Tillemont, Mim. E- rle's. 
torn. ix. pp. 381 IT. ; 527 ff., 545.) [E- V.] 

NICOBULUS (8), the eldest son of the 
above by Alypiana, the daughter of Gorgonia, 
the sister of Gregory Nazianzen. The aged 
Gregory lavished all the affectionateness of his 
nature on the boy, in whose religious and intel- 
lectual progress he took the keenest interest. 
He describes him as a quick, clever boy, but 
inclined to indolence and needing the spur (Ep. 
116). On Nicobulus and his brothers being sent 
by their father to Tyana, c. 382, to learn 
" tachygraphy," Gregory wrote to commend 
them to the care of Theodorus, the bishop of 
that city, begging him to see that they had 
lodgings near the church. When in the same 
or the following year the boys were removed to 
Caesarea to study rhetoric, Gregory requested 
Helladius, the bishop, to take care that they 
were placed under the ablest and most diligent 
masters, and to allow them to visit him often, 
making them feel he did not look down on them 
(Ep. 218). Nicobulus and his brothers had as 
their private tutor Eudoxius, the son of an old 
friend of Gregory's, to whom he wrote frequent 
letters on the subject of the boys' training 
(Epp. 115-117; 119-121; 139) [Eudoxics(9) 
(10)]. A little later Gregory wrote a poetical 
epistle to Nicobulus the elder, in the name of his 
son, asking his father's permission to go abroad 
to study eloquence as his great-uncle bad done 
with such happy results (Cartn. ilix.). To this 
Nicobulus replied also in verse (if this be not also 
from Gregory's pen), granting the lad's request, 
but adding some sage counsels as to the company 
lie kept and his general conduct (Carm. 50). 
In accordance with this permission the lad went 
to Constantinople, where he studied under a 
sophist named Photius, who delighted Gregory 
with his report of his great-nephew's marvellous 
progress (Ep. 118), and afterwards under Stagi- 
rius. This arrangement gave great offence to 
an old friend and fellow-student of Gregory's 
named Eustochius, who wrote violent letters 
complaining that the boy had not been placed 
under his charge (Epp. 61, 62). [Ecstochius (3).] 

Digitized by 



The early death of Nicobulus the elder plunged 
his family into trouble, and after the death of 
Gregory the boy with his brothers disappears 
from onr Tie w. (Tillemont, M€m. Eccles. torn. ix. 
pp. 542-545.) [E. V.] 

NICOCLES, a Lacedemonian, the instructor 
of the emperor Julian in grammar (Soc. //. E. 
fii. 1). His name often recurs in the corre- 
spon lence of Libanius. In Wolfe's edition of 
Libanius (Ep. 1137), Nicocles apologizes to him 
for the insults offered by a citizen of Antiocb, 
on the ground that in such a populous city 
there must be some bad persons. Even in his 
own Sparta, with a Lycurgus as legislator, all 
the citizens were not equally good. From Ep. 
1142 he seems to hare been a pagan, at least 
under Julian. [G. T. S.] 

NICODEMU8, counselled by Nilus (lib. ii. 
«p. 22, in Pat. Or. lxiix.) to be thankful for 
poverty, as it will diminish his responsibility in 
the day of judgment. [C. H.J 

NICOLAITANS. The mention of this 
name in the Apocalypse (concerning which see 
Dictionary of the Bible, j. v.) has caused it 
to appear in almost all lists of heresies ; but 
there really is no trustworthy evidence of the 
continuance of a sect so called after the death 
of the Apostle John. Irenaeus, we know, in 
writing his great work made use of a treatise 
against heresies by Justin Martyr; and there 
seems reason to think that Justin's list began 
with Simon Magus, and made no mention of 
Nicolaitans. This may be conjectured from the 
order in which Irenaeus discusses the heresies, 
viz, Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, 
Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, the Nico- 
laitans. That these last should hare so late a 
place in the list is inconsistent with chronologi- 
cal order ; and the most plausible account of the 
matter is that Irenaeus followed the order of an 
older list, which did not include the Nicolaitans, 
and which he afterwards proceeded to supple- 
ment by additions of his own. About the 
Nicolaitans he has nothing to say (I. zxvi. 3), 
but what he found in the Apocalypse ; for the 
words " qui indiscrete rivunt," which is the 
only thing having the appearance of an addition, 
seems to be only an inference from Rev. ii. 13, 
14, and 20-22. Irenaeus in a later book (111. 
x. 6) incidentally mentions the Nicolaitans as a 
branch of the Gnostics, and seems to ascribe to 
them the whole body of Ophite doctrine. It 
may therefore have been from Irenaeus that 
Hippolytus derived his view of these heretics. 
In his earlier treatise (see Vol. III. 93), as we 
gather from comparing the lists of Epiphanius, 
Philaster, and Pseudo-Tertnllian, he brings them 
up into an earlier, though still too late a place 
is his list, his order being Simon Menander, 
Saturninus, Basilides, Nicolaitans ; and he as- 
cribes to them the tenets of a fully developed 
Ophite system. Concerning this we refer to the 
article Ophites, believing that there is no suffi- 
cient evidence that these people called themselves 
Nicolaitans. In the later work of Hippolytus, 
Nicolaus the deacon is made to be the founder of 
the Gnostics ; but the notice is short, and goes 
little beyond what is told in the first book of 



Irenaeus. It is needless to notice the statement* 
of later writers. 

Concerning Nicolas the deacon see the article 
Nicolas (Dict. op Bible). We merely repeat 
here the statement of Stephen Gobar (cf. Phot. 
Bibl. 232) that Hippolytus and Epiphanius make 
Nicolas answerable for the errors of the sect 
called after him, whereas Ignatius,* Clement of 
Alexandria, Euscbius, and Theodoret condemn the 
sect, but impute none of the blame to Nicolaus 
himself. [G. S.] 

NICOLAUS (1), Dec. 6, bishop of Myra in 
Lycia, at the time of the Diocletian persecution, 
and one of the most popular saints both in the 
East and West. His acts, which may embody 
some historical elements, are filled with legends 
and miracles which have become celebrated in 
hagiological literature. His father's name is 
reputed to have been Epiphanius, and his 
mothers Joanna, They lived at the city of 
Pataca, where they occupied a high position. 
Nicolaus is regarded as the patron of children, 
and their exemplar in piety. Accordingly we 
are told that as soon as he was born he stood up 
and returned thanks to God for the gift of 
existence. He rigorously observed the canonical 
fnsts of Wednesdays and Fridays, even when an 
infant, by abstaining on those days from suck- 
ing his mother's breasts. As soon as he grew 
to man's estate he adopted the ascetic life, and 
went on a journey to Palestine to visit the holy 
places. Then began a series of miracles which 
have rendered him the favourite patron of 
sailors. He predicted bad weather when every- 
thing seemed fair and beautiful, calmed storms 
which threatened his ship with destruction, and 
healed a sailor who had fallen off the mast. He 
is said to have been present at the Council of 
Nice, where he waxed so indignant with the 
sentiments of Arius, that he rushed over and 
inflicted a tremendous box on the heretic's ear. 
Dean Stanley (Eastern Church, pp. 110, 132) 
represents Nicolaus as occupying the central 
place in oil the traditional pictures of the 
council. Mr. Tozer in bis notes to Finlay's 
Hist, of Greece, t, i. p. 124, notes that Nicolaus 
has taken the place of Poseidon in Oriental 
Christianity. Thus, in the island of EleOssa, a 
temple of Poseidon has been changed into the 
church of St. Nicolaus. His popularity in 
England has been very great, 376 churches 
being dedicated to him. ' His feast day was for- 
merly connected in Salisbury Cathedral, Eton, 
and elsewhere with the curious ceremonial of 
choosing a boy-bishop, who presided till the 
following Innocents Day, over his fellow 
choristers, arrayed in full episcopal attire (cf. 
The Antiquities of Catliedral Church of Salisbury, 
A.D. 1723, pp. 72-80, where the ritual of the 
feast is given). We can trace the fame of this 
saint back to the 6th century, when Justinian 
built a church in his honour at C. P. (Procop. 
de Acdif. i. 6). His relics were translated in 
the middle ages to Barri in Italy, whence he is 
often styled Nicolaus of Barri. The acts of 
Nicolaus will be found at length in Surii Hist. 
&inct, and his legends and treatment in art in 
Jameson's Sacred Art, t. ii. p. 450. The figure 

• The reference Is to the larger form of the Epistle to 
the TralUans. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



of St. Nicolaus is a leading one in the celebrated 
Blenheim Raphael, lately purchased for the 
National Gallery. " [G. T. S.] 

NICOLA US (2), of Damascus, writer on the 
Deluge. (Hieron. De Sit. et Xom. Loc. Heb. 
lib. i. ; De Oeneti, in Pat. Lot. xxiii. 861 a.) 

[C. H.] 

NICOLAUS (3), a monk at the end of the 
4th century, to whom Marcus the anchorite in- 
scribed the eighth book of his work. (Phot. cod. 
200.) [C. H.] 

NICOLAUS (4), presbyter and monk of the 
monastery of St. Publius at Zeugma, to whom, 
together with Thoodutus and Chaereas his brother 
monks, Chrysostom wrote in 405, thanking them 
for their wish to visit him at Cucusus, from 
accomplishing which they had been kept by fear 
of the lsaurian banditti (Chrys. Ep. 146). It 
is probable that he is the same person to whom 
Chrysostom addressed three letters relating to 
the missionary work among the pagans of Phoe- 
nicia (/-pp. 53, 69, 145). From the first of these 
we learn that Nicolaus took a very warm interest 
in those missions, and had sent monks thither to 
carry on the work of evangelization, in which he 
had exhorted them to persevere in spite of the 
opposition they met with, and the violence with 
which they were treated. Chrysostom wrote in 
405 warmly commending his zeal, and entreat- 
ing him to send able reinforcements, and to urge 
Gerontius to go to the mission field as soon as his 
health would allow (Ep. 53). Towards the end 
of the same year Chrysostom wrote again from 
Cucusus, expressing his earnest desire to see 
him, and begging him since that was impossible 
to write to him as often as he could. It would 
be a consolation to him, in his loneliness, sickness, 
and daily terrors of an lsaurian inroad, to know 
that his friend was in good health (Ep. 145). 
After his flight to Arabissus in 406 he wrote 
again, describing the danger he had been in with 
" death every day at the door," praising him for 
the interest Nicolaus continued to take in the 
Phoenician missions, and begging him to write 
if he had anything fresh to tell of them (Ep. 69). 

[E. V.] 

NICOLAUS (6), priest of Thessalonica, 
deputed by pope Leo I., A.D. 444, to act as his 
legate in eastern Illyria : this was at the request 
of Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica (St. Leo, Ep. 
vi.), and while Nicolaus received full instructions 
as to regulating the ordinations of bishops and 
clergy, and the general discipline, the lllyrian 
metro|K>litans were directed to receive him as 
the papal representative (lb., Ep. v. ap. Migne, 
Fat. Lat. t. liv. 616-7 ; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. x. 
202-3. On the legatine authority, see Diet. 
Chr. Antiq. ii. 967). [J. G.] 

NICOMACHUS, an apostate at Lampsacus, 
A.D. 250, said to have been slain by demons 
(Boll. Acta SS. 15 Mai. iii. 453 a; Tillem. iii. 
321). [C. H.] 

NICOMAS, bishop of lconium, noted by Euse- 
bius (H. E. vii. 28) as one of the leading bishops 
•t the middle of the third century. [G. S.j 

NICOMEDES(l), African bishop of Segermi 
(Segelmi, Secermi), which is not mentioned by 


ancient geographers (nor in Diet. Gk. & Roman 
Geog.), but whose bishops occur twice or three 
times as belonging to Provincia Byzacena (see 
Morcelli). Its name does not occur in inscrip- 
tions. He is named fourth in Syn. Carth. 2 de 
pace, a.d. 251, Cyp. Ep. 57; fifth in Syn. 
Carth. de Basilidc, a.d. 254, Cyp. Ep. 67; 
eighth in Syn. Carth. de Bapt. H. i. Cyp. Ep. 
70 ; ninth in Syn. Carth. de Bapt. iii. Sent. Epp. 

[E. W. B.] 

NICOMEDES (2), a monk, member of a coc- 
nobitic society at Nazianzus, one of those highly 
praised by Gregory Nazianzen in his poem 
extolling the virtues of these solitaries (Carm. 
46, p. 108). Kicomedes was a kinsman of 
Gregory's, who had consecrated all his property 
to religious uses, and like a second Abraham hail 
devoted his two children, a son and a daughter, 
to the service of God in coenobitic societies. 


this head may be reckoned Anthimus, bishop 
of Nicomedi.1 and a great number of his flock 
who perished under suspicion of having set fire 
to the Imperial palace at the very beginning 
of the Diocletian persecution. Euseb. viii. 6, 13. 
The acts of Anthimus are given by the Bollandist 
in April t. iii. iu Greek and Latin. Cf. Rninart, 
Acta Sine. p. 320, and Tillem. Mirn. v. 23. 

[g. t. a] 

NICOSTBATUS (1), Roman deacon (Cyp. 
Ep. 31, tit. ; Ep. 32), and confessor 253. From 
use of paironae (Ep. 50) probably a freedman. 
Slaves sould be ordained (Can. Ap. 81), with 
consent of masters followed by manumission, 
but the word dominae would then probably 
have been used. At the council of Elvira freed- 
men were forbidden to be ordained during the 
life of patrons. One of the fellow-sufferers 
(Ep. 37) of MOYSE8 and Maximus, and, like the 
latter and his friends, an adherent of Novatinn. 
But at the time when they returned to the Cat ho- 
lic church and to Cornelius (Ep. 49, 51, 52) he 
left them and sailed with Novatus to Carthage to 
push the Novatianist cause. (Ep. 50.) Me is 
accused by Cornelius of peculation in his office, 
or rather it may be transferring to what he 
considered the true church funds which he had 
in his keeping belonging to the church of Rome 
(Ep. 50, 52). In Catnt. Vet. Pontif. (Pearson, Ann. 
p. 30 u) it is said that Novatus made or caused 
him to be made a bishop in Africa ; but this 
seems to be a confusion, and so thinks Baluze : see 
Evaristus, who with Nicostratus, Novatus, 
Primus, Dionysius, composed the legation to 
Carthage. [E. W. B.] 

NICOSTRATUS (2), a primiscrinius at 
Rome, c. 287, in the Acta of St. Sebastian, by 
whom he was converted while having in his 
custody SS. Marcus and Marcellianus. He after- 
wards suffered martyrdom. (Boll. Acta SS. 20 
Jan. ii. 268-270, §§ 24, 30, 35, 68, 76 ; Tille- 
mont, iv. 518, 519, 520, 528.) [C. H.] 

NICOSTRATUS (3), eastern bishop, de- 
posed probably by the emperor Anastasius 1. 
Along with two other bishops, Helias and 
Thomas, who were in a like predicament, 
he is mentioned in several letters of pope Hor- 
misdas, who in 519 and 520 was very urgent 

Digitized by 



with the emperor Justin I. for their restoration. 
For references see Heuas. [J. G.] 

NICOTYCHUS (1), a scholasticus charged 
by Nilus (lib. iii. ep. 8) with being secretly- 
addicted to Gentile wickedness. [C. H.] 

NICOTYOHUS (2) (Nik*V»xoj), a deacon 
warned by Kilns (lib. ii. ep. 142) against indulg- 
ing voluptuous thoughts. [C. H.J 

NIDAN, Welsh saint, son of Gwrvyw, of the 
family of Coel Godebog. in the college of Ponmon, 
Anglesey ; natron of Llannidan in Anglesey. 
Feast Sept. 30. (Rees, IV. SSL 295; Williams, 
lolo M3S. 504, 528, 5i>8 ; Myv. Arch. ii. 49.) 

[J. G.] 

NIDHARDUS, addressed by Winfrid c. 720 
<JEp. 4 in Pat. Lot. lxxxix. 692). [C. H.] 


NIGIDIUS, a heretic, apinrcntly a Gnostic, 
mentioned by Tertullian in his De Praetcript. 
Haarti. cap. xxx. He classes bim with Her- 
mogenes and several others as "still perverting 
the ways of the Lord," whence we conclude he was 
still alive when this was written [UtRMOOENliS] 
(Hilgenfeld, KeUergtscltichte, 554). [G. T. S.] 

NILAMMON (1) (NfAdnpuv), one of the 
bishops ordained by Alexander bishop of Alex- 
andria, and banished by the Arians to Ammoniaca 
in the time of Athanasius. (Athan. Ap. de Fug. 
§ 7, Hist. Ar.$n-, TiUem. viii. 697.) [C. H.] 

NTLAMMON (2), a solitary, elected bishop 
of Gera in Egypt, about the time of the expulsion 
of Chrysostoru from Constantinople. He shrank 
from the honour, however, and died when Theo- 
philos archbishop of Alexandria came to ordain 
hiin. (Sox. viii. 19; Boll. Acta SS. 6 Jun. 
326 B ; Tillem. xi. 214, 489 ; JLe Quien, Or. Chr. 
ii. 551.) [C HO 

■NILAMMON (3), a scholasticus, one or 
more, addressed by Isidore of Pelusium on the 
preference of deeds to words (lib. i. ep. 3 in Pat. 
Gr. In viii.), on the principle that religion can- 
not be fairly reproached with the crimes of its 
ministers (lib. iii. ep. 242), and on the terrors of 
conscience (lib. v. ep. 561). Other Nilammons 
addressed by Isidore 



(4), two persons in one letter (lib. iii. ep. 288) ; 
their characters, in which as well as in name 
they resembled one another, are severely cen- 

(6), a presbyter (lib. iii. ep. 293), who en- 
quires why those under intoxication are differ- 
ently affected in appearance. 

(6), a deacon (lib. iii. ep. 364) on the guilt 
incurred by those who minister at the sacrament 
while indulging in sin. 

(7), a deacon and physician (lib. iii. 71) on 
God being a God of judgment as well as of mercy. 

(8), a monk (lib. ir. ep. 98) in reply to 
his enquiry why, since it behoved Christ to 
suffer, those wiio crucified Him should be pun- 

(9), (lib. Iv. ep. 150) in answer to the 
question why St. Paul should have written to 
the Corinthians, "1 determined not to know 
anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him 
crucified." [C. H.] 

NILO (NefAw), addressed by Isidore of Pelu- 
sium (lib. iv. ep.l08)on St. Paul's words, " having 
spoiled principalities and powers," &c. [C. H.] 

NILUS (1), a proconsul and father of Panso- 
phius, an Egyptian martyr during the Decian 
persecution. Pnnsophius is commemorated by 
Bas Men. Jan. 16. (Leo Allat. Dialrib. de Sitis 
et coram Scriptis, sec. ii.) [G. T. S.j 

NILUS (2), Sept. 19, an Egyptian bishop 
who suffered by fire in Palestine with another 
Egyptian bishop, Peleus, in the Diocletian per- 
secution. (Euseb. II. E. viii. 13, Hart. Paiest. 
cap. xiii.) , [G. T. S.] 

NILUS (8), Nov. 12, a famous ascetic of Sinai, 
who flourished at the end of the 4th century. 
He was probably born in Galatin, as he speaks 
of St. Plato, martyr of Ancyra as his country- 
man. He rose to high position at Constantinople, 
where he held the office of prefect. He married, 
and had two children, when he determined 
about A.D. 390 to retire to Sinai, taking with 
him his son Theodulus. His epistles are very 
curious, and interesting reading, detailing the 
assaults made on him by demons, and replying 
to the various queries of every kind, doctrinal, 
disciplinary, and even political, with which he 
was assailed by his admirers. GaInas, the 
Gothic general, consulted liim on the Arian 
controversy, but without changing his opinions 
(Epp. lib. i. 70, 79, 114). Nilus boldly took 
the side of St. Chrysostom when banished from 
C. P. in 404, and wrote in his defence to the 
emperor Arcadius (Epp. iii. 279), who in reply 
solicited the prayers of Nilns to protect Con- 
stantinople from impending ruin. The story 
of his ordination is a curious one. The Saracens 
iuraded the desert of Sinai, and took captive a 
number of the solitaries, among whom were 
Nilus and his son Theodulus. They dismissed 
Nilus and the older men, but retained the youuo- 
men, intending to offer them as sacrifices to 
the Morning Star on the next day. They over- 
slept themselves, however, and then, as the 
propitious time was past, they sold Theodulus, 
who fell into the hands of a neighbouring 
bishop. There he was found by his father. 
The piety of them both so struck the bishop 
that he compelled them to accept ordination 
at his hands. They then returned to Sinai, 
and distinguished themselves by a severer piety 
than they had practised previously. Nilus died 
about the year 430. Theodulus is commemorated 
on January 14. Fabricius, in vol. x. 1-12 of his 
Bibliotheca Graeca, bestows a lengthened notice 
on Nilus, and gives a list of his works, which 
were first published in a complete shape in 
Migne's Patrologia Graeca, t. lxxix., where his 
letters will be found after the text of Leo 
Allatius. The bibliography of his works is 
detailed at length in Fabricius, I. c, and in 
Ceillier, viii. 229. The study of his writings 
throws much light on the state of monasticism, 

Digitized by 




and of Christian society in general at the end 
of 4th century. Take his letters for instance : — 
The two last epistles in the collection lib. iv. 
Epp. 61 and 62 were quoted at the second 
Jiiccue council as bearing on the Iconoclastic 
controversy, both sides claiming support from 
auch an eminent saint. They are, certainly, 
both of them most interesting and important 
documents for the illustration of church life 
at that period. Olympiodorus, an Eparch, was 
desirous of erecting a church which he proposed 
to decorate with images of saints in the sanc- 
tuary, together with hunting scenes, birds, and 
animals in mosaic, and numerous crosses in the 
nave, and on the floor. He designed a scheme 
of decoration, iu fact, which we find carried out 
some time later in the churches of Central Syria, 
depicted in De Vogug's great work on the Civil 
and Ecclesiastical Architecture of Syria. The 
reply of Nilus is important from the purely 
artistic and architectural point of view. He 
condemns the mosaics as mere trifling and un- 
worthy a manly Christian soul. He rejects 
numerous crosses in the nave, but orders the 
erection of one cross at the East end of the 
sanctuary, " Inasmuch as by the Cross man was 
delivered from spiritual slavery, and hope has 
been shed on the nations." Good pictures from 
the Old and Mew Testaments meet with his 
approval. They serve as books for the on- 
learned ; teach them Scripture history, and 
impress on them the record of God's mercies. 
The church waa to have numerous chapels. 
Each chapel may have a cross erected therein. 
Epistle sixty-two proves that his prohibition 
of mosaics only extended to hunting scenes, and 
did not probably include the images of saints. 
It was written for the purpose of exalting the 
fame of his favourite martyr, Plato of Ancyra, 
and it conclusively proves that the invocation 
of saints was then practised in the East [cf. 
FlDENTiUS (2)]. It tells a story of a father 
and son who were taken captive by the bar- 
barians. The son invoked the help of Christ 
and of St. Plato, when the latter appeared to 
him mounted on horseback, and leading with 
him a riderless horse which the pious captive 
was compelled to mount, and was guided by the 
supernatural visitor to a place of safety. The 
martyr was recognized by the young mau from 
the numerous pictures he had seen. Nilus did 
not approve of the extraordinary forms which 
monasticism was assuming. Lib. ii. Epp. 114 
and 115 are addressed to one Nicander,n Sty lite, 
who must have set the fashion which St. Simeon 
followed. In his first epistle, Nilus tells him 
his lofty position is due simply to pride, and 
shall find a fulfilment of the words, " He that 
exalts himself shall be abased." In the second 
-epistle he charges npon him light and amorous 
-conversation with women. Monastic discipline 
seems indeed to have been very relaxed in his 
time, as the same charges are often repeated 
in his letters and works. We often find in them 
the peculiar practices of the monks or of the 
«arly church explained with mystical references. 
Thus in lib. i. Ep. 24 he explains to one Mar- 
cianus, the reason of washing the hands before 
entering a church (cf. Bingham, t. ii. p. 398). 
Epp. 26-31 are taken up with a defence 
of the practice of ecclesiastical vigils, in reply 
to the arguments and objections of one Tinio- 


theus, a sub-deacon, who adopted the views of 
Vigilantius, while Nilus uses a more Christian 
style of argument than that employed by 
Jerome. Epp. 86 and 87 explain standing with 
outstretched arms at prayer as a figure of the 
Cross, with which may be compared, lib. iii. 
Ep. 132 expounding standing at prayer on 
Sundays as a testimony to the resurrection. 
Epp. 124 — 127 contain his replies to a Jew 
named Benjamin, who attacked Christianity. 
In the second book we find Ep. 116 reproving 
a nun, who had so far forgotten Eastern 
modesty as even to teach men publicly in a 
church. He refers her very briefly to the 
Apostolic prohibition. In Ep. 160, he writes to 
a bishop, Philo, who combined, like the ancient 
Celts, the office of bishop with that of abbat, 
advising him about the management of his monks. 
In Ep. 245, he refers to the custom of monks, 
who wore their cloaks over the right shoulders, 
while seculars wore theirs over the left ; while 
in Ep. 289, he writes to a chamberlain, Metho- 
dius, explaining Christ's fear of death, and His 
prayer against it in the Garden of Gethsemnne, 
as a mere pretence, to deceive the devil and to 
lead him to think Christ a mere man. Therefore 
the devil brought about His crucifixion; other- 
wise, had he known Him to be God, he would 
not have done so. These specimens of the 
matters contained in his letters will show how 
very various are the subjects discussed. In 
fact, there is no more copious source for illus- 
trations of the life and times of the close of 
the 4th century, than this correspondence which 
he maintained with all classes from the emperor 
downwards. Another circumstance shows the 
wide influence Nilus exercised even in the 
distant West. Cardinal Pitra has published in 
his Spidlegium Solesmense, iii. 398, a letter, 
written by Nilus to one Nemertius, expounding 
the mystical meaning of the various parts of a 
church — the gates, columns, bishop's throne, etc 
He explains the position of the episcopal throne 
in the midst of all the presbyters as representing 
the Seat of the Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. 
This original position of the episcopal throne, 
facing westwards in the midst of the twelve 
presbyters, is retained to this day in the Coptic 
churches of Egypt, in the 7th-century church 
of Torcelli, near Venice, and the cathedral of 
Parenzo in Istria (cf. Butler's Ancient Coptic 
Churches of Egypt, Oxford, 1884, p. 35 and 
p. 78, where a plan may be seen illustrating 
this arrangement). This epistle was found by 
Pitra in a manuscript of Cambrai, belonging 
to 9th century, in a Latin translation made by 
Anastasius Bibliothecarius ; affording an instance 
of the percolation, at that period, of Syrian 
ideas into the West of Europe. The prevalence 
of the anchorite life in the Celtic church of the 
West may be largely due to his influence. 
He wrote a treatise in twenty-seven chapters in 
praise of it, entitled De Monachorum Prae- 
stantid, which can be consulted in the volume 
of the Patrol. Graec., already cited, col. 1061. 
His treatise on prayer in one hundred and fifty- 
three chapters was highly praised by Photius, 
cod. 201. It is contained in the same volume, 
and embraces many noble thoughts. It rises 
above the narrow view of prayer, which limits 
it to petition merely, and defines it as a 
colloquy of the human spirit with the Divine. 

Digitized by 



Ceillier (viiL 205 — 230) has a good account of 
the life, doctrines, and bibliography of Saint 
Nilna. [G. T. S.] 

NILUS (4), a scholosticus addressed by 
Isidore of Pelusium (lib. r. epp. 240, 241). 

(5), another person or more (lib. i. epp. 5, 56, 
137, 219 ; ii. 160 ; iii. 69, 139 ; iv. 151, 158, 167, 
179, 193; t. 130, 145, 157, 272, 287, 391, 438, 
487, 492, 516). 

(6), a deacon, who affirms that philosophy, 
rhetoric, grammar, &<^, derive their ornament 
and grace from Christian truth (lib. iii. ep. 65), 
and comments on the passages, "If thine eye 
offend thee," &c (iii. 66), and "The natural man 
receireth not," &c. (iv. 127). 

(7), a monk (lib. i. epp. 80, 427) on the passage 
"Agree with thine adversary quickly," &c, and 
on the hypocrisy of those who wear the sheep- 
skin girdle, bat do not mortify the flesh. 

NILUS (8). a priest addressed by Nilus 
(3) (lib. iii. epp. 236, 256) on the value of 
prayer and on the passage St. John v. 7 ; a monk 
(lib. iii. epp. 155, 255) on the value of prayer 
and on Ps. zlii. 3 ; a scholasticus (lib. iii. ep. 
153) on the spiritual conflict. Another person 
(lib. iii. ep. 170) on divine chastisements. 

[C. H.] 

NILUS (9), bishop of Orthosias in Phoenicia, 
ordained by Leon ti us bishop of Tripolis, having 
been trained in the monastery of St. Euthymius 
in Palestine (Vit. Euthym. § 129, in Coteler. 
Ecct. Or. Monum. ii. 310; Le Quien, ii. 826). 

[C. H.] 

NIMTMIA, Aug. 12, martyr at Augsburg, 
with Hilaria, mother of St. Afro, and several 
other women. (Mart. Us., Adon.) [Hilaria (1).] 

[G. T.S.] 

NINIAN (Nixias, Ninas, Ninas, Kinot, 
Ninyas, Ntnia, Nynyane, Din an, Rikoan, 
rUSGEN"), bishop and confessor, commemorated 
Sept. 16. The general facts of his life and work 
present comparatively few points for dispute, 
owing perhaps to there being but one tradition, 
and that not materially departed from. 

The primary authority is Bede (E. H. iii. 4), 
who makes however only an incidental allusion 
to St. Ninian in connection with St. Columbs, yet 
touches therein the chief points embodied in the 
later Life — bis converting the southern Picts a 
long time before St. Columba's day (multo ante 
tempore), his being " de natione Brittonum," but 
instructed in the Christian faith and mysteries 
at Rome ; his friendship with St. Martin of Tours, 
in whose honour he dedicated his episcopal see 
and church at Candida Cass in the province of 
the Bernicii, and his building the church there of 
stone " insolito Brittonibus more" (if. II. B. 176). 
This is repeated in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 
a.d. 565 (lb. 303). Ailred's Vita S. Niniani 
appears to be little more than an expansion of 
these details, but in how far he, in the 12th cen- 
tury, had or had not authentic evidence of an 
earlier date to assist him in the compilation we 
hare no means of knowing, beyond this that he 
specially refers to Bede's information and also to 



a "liber de vita et miraculis ejus, barbario 
(barbarice) scriptus," but of its value we are 
ignorant. The chief life is Vita Niniani Pict-iram 
Australium apoatoii, auctore Ailredo Jieivallensi, 
first printed by Pinkerton ( Vit. Ant. SS. 1 sq. ed. 
1 789), and reprinted with translation and notes, 
by Bp. Forbes (Historians of Scotland, vol. v. 
1874). Capgrave (Nov. Leg. Angl. f. 241-3) 
has De Nmiano Ep. et Conf. which appears to 
be taken from or based upon a Life in the Bur- 
gundian Library at Brussels ; this is partly 
translated and commented upon by Creasy (Ch. 
Hist. Brit. 154, 161, 184). In Bret. Aberdon. 
(Prop. SS. p. Est. ff. 107 sq.) there are 9 lections 
with antiphons, hymns, Sic. The Scotch 
annalists have been mindful of St. Ninian, and 
Ussher (wks. vi. 200 sq.) has collected their 
notices, but they are of no special value. The 
Bollandists (Acta S3. 16 Sept. v. 318-28) print 
no Life, but give a learned commentarius his- 
torico-criticus by Stickenus, in which most of 
the points in his life are considered. (See further 
Hardy, Detcript. Cat. i. 44 sq. 853 ; Bp. Forbes, 
Lings of SS. Kent and Nin. Introd. ; Grub, Eccl. 
Hist. Scot. i. c. 2 et nl. ; Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 3, 
444 ; Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 14, 35 ; 
Pinkerton, Enquiry, ii. 263 sq. ; Pryce, Ana. 
Brit. Ch. 104 sq.) 

Ailred's Life of S. Ninian is of the usual un- 
historic character, fuller of moralisings than of 
facts, and having only one fixed point to suggest 
a date. St. Ninian was of royal birth and be- 
longed to the valley of the Solway ; his father 
was probably a regulus in the Cumbrian king- 
dom, and, being a Christian, had his son early en- 
grafted into the church by baptism. The youth 
soon manifested a desire to visit Rome, and cross- 
ing over to the Continent set out on a pilgrimage 
to the holy city, which he appears to have 
reached in the time of pope Damasus (a.d. 366 - 
384), perhaps in A.D. 370. After devoting 
several years (pluribus annis) there in study of 
the Scriptures and holy learning, he was raised 
to the episcopate, A.D. 394, by the pope himself, 
probably Siricius (a.d. 385-399), and sent as 
bishop to the western part of Britain, where the 
Gospel was unknown, corrupted, or misrepre- 
sented by the teachers. Calling on St. Martin 
•t Tours and receiving from him masons to build 
churches according to the Roman method, he 
returned to his native shores and bnilt his church 
at Witerno, now Whithern in Wigtonshire, but 
whether it was near the site of the later abbey 
or on the island near the shore is uncertain. As 
he was building the church when the news 
reached him of St. Martin's death (a.d. 397), 
in whose honour he was careful to dedicate the 
church itself, this at the latest must have been 
in the spring of 398. Farther than this we 
have no landmarks for ascertaining his dates. 
The chief field of his missionary labours was 
in the central district of the east of Scotland 
among those barbarians who had defied the 
Roman power in the days of Agricola, and who 
were separated off from the Roman province of 
Valentia by the rampart of Antoninus ; but the 
veneration in which his name is held i* shown 
by his dedications being found over all Scotland. 
(For dedications see Bp. Forbes, Kats. 424.) 

His monastic school, known by various uames 
as Magnum Monasterium, Monasterium Uosna- 
tense, Alba, and Candida Casa, was famous 

Digitized by 




through Cumbria and Ireland, and was one of 
the chief scats of early Christian learning to 
which the Welsh and Irish saiuts resorted, till 
both school and see were destroyed by the irrnp- 
tions of the Britons and Saxons. The see was 
revived for a time in the 8th century, under 
Saxon influence from York (Ha<ldan and Stubbs, 
Caunc. ii. pt. i. 7-8, 56 sq. ; Stubbs, Reg. Sac. 
Any. 184 et al.), to be again restored in the 
12th cent, by King Darid 1. of Scotland. The 
date usually assigned for his death, though on no 
definite data, is Sept. 16 A.D. 432, and Bede 
(E. H. iii. c. 4) relates that he was buried in his 
church at Candida Casa, which in the middle 
ages became a much frequented place of pilgrim- 
age. (See Chalmers, Caled. iii. 42.) At the 
same time it must be noted that an Irish tra- 
dition (O'Conor, Rer. Mb. Scrip, iv. 86 ; Todd, B. 
of Hymns, i. 100 sq. ; Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 3, 46) 
carries him to Ireland as Honenn, &c, who 
founded a church at Cluain-Conaire in the north 
of Oi-Faelain, and died there. But this is prob- 
ably fictitious. Dempster <ff. E. Scot. ii. 502) 
ascribes to him Meditationes Psalterii and De 
Sententiis Sanctorum, while Tanner (Bibl. 549), 
from Leland, mentions Eulogvim temporis, all 
probably fictitious. The Clog-rinny or Bell of 
St. Ringan, of rude workmanship, is in the 
Antiquarian Museum, Edinburgh, and his cave 
is still pointed out on the sea-shore in the 
parish of Glasserton, Wi?tonshire. His feast is 
Sept. 16th. 

The era embraced in the life of St. Ninian 
(A.D. 360-432 ?) is a memorable epoch in the 
history of the Western church. While in the 
East were living and suffering for the faith the 
great St. Basil of Caesarea, the Gregories, and 
St. Chrysostom, there were no less saints in the 
West moulding the church's teaching and destiny, 
St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. And 
still further west St. Martin was consolidating 
at Tours the monastic system which was to prove 
so effectual in christianising Britain [Monastic 
Bishop, Diet. Ch, Ant. ii. 1270]. But it was a 
time of barbarous warfare, and the Roman em- 
pire was falling to pieces before the inroads of 
the Goths from the north and east. Rome re- 
quired her forces to protect, if possible, her own 
citadel, and the colonies were left to shift for 
themselves. The last of the legionaries were 
withdrawn from Britain in A.D. 410, while St. 
Ninian was preaching among the southern Picts, 
and for a time all intercourse was practically 
broken off with Rome. Bnt up to this time 
Britain had formed part of the empire, and the 
Toad was open for soldier or pilgrim to the 
capital, and the youthful Briton from the Sol- 
way may easily have found his way to the holy 
city and been a witness of the wretched scenes 
which distinguished the episcopate of Damasus. 
Coming from Rome through theGallican church 
and imbibing the views of his patron St. Martin, 
he would impress upon the new church in Britain 
the mark of a peculiarly Western character, and 
the first fruits of his mission would appear in 
the monastic establishment at Whithern, but of 
other foundation time or tradition has left no 
trace. Where tho imperial legions had failed to 
maintain their footing, this pioneer of the Gospel 
entered to establish the kingdom of peace, and 
laboured for upwards of thirty years in the 
centre and south-west of what is now Sootland. 


He died in peace, and, according to tradition, his 
work was taken up by St. Palladius, St. Ternan, 
St. Servanus, St. Kentigern, and other Scotch 
saints, but St. Ninian remains the first and 
greatest of the ancient British missionaries of 
whom we hare clear and distinct tradition. 

[J. G.] 

NINNIDH (NENimra, Nenotdh, Nennt- 
SIU8, Nainkidr), surnamed Saebhrnisc or Laobh- 
dhearc, of InUmacsaint, co. Fermanagh, in Loch 
Erne, bishop, commemorated Jan. 18 ; belongs to 
the Ath centurv, but his legend is doubtful, {if. 
Doneg. 23 ; Colgan, Acta SS. Ill sq. ; O'Hnnlon, 
Ir. S3, i. 819 sq. ; Lanigan, E. H. Ir. i. 451 ; ii. 
233. For the architectural remains at Inismac- 
saint, and the rudely executed ancient cross of 
St. Nenn, see O'Hanlon ut supr. and Proc. Roy. 
Ir. Acad. vii. 304.) [J. G.] 

NINNOOA. [Nenhoca.] 

NINUS (Cyp. Ep. 56), in the Decian perse- 
cution with Floras and Clemeutianus endured 
the question before local magistrates, but broke 
down under more protracted torture before the 
proconsul. Their case was brought by Superius 
before six bishops at Capsa, who referred it to 
Cyprian and he to the council. He was in- 
clined to restore them after three years of 
penance, counted from Feb. A.D. 250 to April 
252. [E. W. B.] 

NIOBITES, a sub-division of the Mooophy- 
site party, who derived their name from a 
Niobes, an Alexandrian professor. They differed 
from the catholics only in the use of language. 
They flourished in cent. vii. (Hefele's Councils, 
sec. 208.) * [G. T. S. ] 

KISTHEBOUS (N«r9e»»os), two fathers (if 
not the same) of the Egyptian desert, one of 
whom is designated i p4yas, and called the friend 
of Antony, and the other a coenobite ; but they 
may be the same person. The former gave 
more practical advice to a man who ques- 
tioned him than monks often imparted. He 
was asked to point out the best course of 
action a man should follow, to promote God's 
glory. He replied that in God's sight all good 
actions are equally acceptable, all virtues stand 
on a level. Abraham was noted for hospitality, 
Elijah for retirement, David for humility, yet 
God accepted all equally. "Choose then the 
coarse your spirit inclines towards, and guard 
your heart," was his conclusion. The second 
Nistherous was supposed to possess miraculous 
powers. A famous anchorite of that day, 
Poemen or Pastor, brother of Nub or Annph 
(Nub] [Poemen], asked him how he obtained 
such spiritual power. Nistherous replied that 
when he entered on the monastic life, he said to 
his soul, "Tu et Asinus estis unum," and then 
acted accordingly. An ass when beaten replies 
not ; so had he acted till he attained to the 
state depicted by the Psalmist (Ixxiii. 21, 22), 
"so foolish was I, and ignorant: even as it were 
a beast before thee ; nevertheless I am always 
by thee." (Cotelerii Monum. Qraec Eccles. i. 
575, 577.) [G. T. S.] 

In Rosweyd's Vita* Patrum these fathers 

Digitized by 



occur under the forms Misteron and Nesteron 
(y. 12, 30 ; vii. 12, 42), one of them being 
Misteron major, who answers to the 6 fiiyas. 
One of them, apparently the coenobite, is met 
with again in Cassian, who visited him in 395. 
Two of the Conferences, the 14th and 15th, 
are held with him, the subjects being De 
SpiriUdi Scientia and De Charinmatibus Divinie. 
He and his associates, Chaeremon and Joseph, are 
"senes tres . . . anachoretae antiquissimi " [JOSE- 
PHU3 (27)] (Cassian, Coll. xiv., it. ap. Migne, 
Pat. Lot. t. xlix. col. 953 sq. ; Tillemont, H. E. 
x.10,439, 442; xiv. 162, 163 ;xv. 154, 155; 
CeUlier, Aid. Sacr. rut 147.) [J. G.] 

NITIGISITJS (NrriGB, Niqesius), bishop of 
Logo (561-585), to whom St. Martin bishop of 
Braga dedicated his collection of canons (Patr. 
Lot. exxx. 575). He heads the subscriptions at 
the synod of Logo in 572 (Mansi, ix. 841). For 
a fuller account of this prelate, see Florez. Sep. 
Sag. xL 66. [Martinus (2), p. 847 a.] 


district, which has contributed to the British 
Museum some of its most important manuscript 
treasures, is a desert valley situated between 30 
and 31 degrees both of latitude and longitude, 
about thirty-five' miles to the left of the most 
western branch of the Mile. The name of Nitria 
(Strabo, Geogr. xriii. i. 23, ed. Paris, 1858) 
belongs properly to the northern part of the 
valley, where the famous Matron lakes are situ- 
ated ; the southern part is more correctly the 
Valley of Scithis or Scete. It is also called the 
Desert, or Valley, of Macarius, from the convent 
dedicated to one of the three saints who bore 
that name. The Mohammedans commonly call 
the whole valley Wadi Habib, after one of their 
own saints, one of the Prophet's companions, who 
retired hither about the end of the 7th century. 
This valley has been the resort of ascetics from 
the earliest times ; the Therapeutae of Philo's day 
may have set the example (Meander, H. E. i. 
84). Possibly, as Jerome seems to hint (ad 
Eustoch.), from some fancied virtues of purifica- 
tion in the lakes themselves, in allusion to Jere- 
miah xi. 22 : " Oppidum Domini Mitriam, in quo 
purissimo virtutum nitro sordes lavantur quo- 
tidie plurimorum." Bingham (Antiquit. lib. viii. 
cap. i. sec 4) has ably discussed the origin of 
monasticism, pointing out that while ascetic 
lives have been led from the very beginning of 
Christianity, monasticism took its rise in Egypt 
after the Decian persecution, when men fled to 
the neighbouring deserts for safety, where, 
finding not only a safe retreat, but also more 
time and liberty to exercise themselves in acts 
of piety and contemplation, they remained there 
when the danger had passed. The first person 
to organize the ascetics of Mitria was Saint 
Amnion [Ammox], who flourished under Con- 
stantino, and was a friend of Athanasius. He 
died about A.D. 345 (Ceill. iv. 314). He was 
succeeded by Macarius, who instituted the first 
community in that part of the valley which to 
this day bears his name. [Macarius (17).] The 
tame of this place rapidly extended Ascetics 
thronged to it in thousands. Men of high 
position weary of the world, like Ausonius, 


the preceptor of Arcadins and Honorius, 
retired hither. Rufinus. who visited Mitria 
about the year 372, mentions some fifty con- 
vents (cf. Soz. H. E. vi. 31), and Palladius, 
who iu 390 passed twelve months here, reckons 
the devotees at five thousand (Pallad. Hist. 
Lausiac. cap. vii. ; Ceill. vii. 484). Jerome also 
visited them about the same time, and gives us 
numerous details of their life (cf. Epp. ad 
Eustoch., ad Rustic). The influence of Mitria 
upon Western Europe was very great. Atha- 
nasius brought with him to Rome upon his 
second exile Ammon, a monk of Nitria; not, 
however, the same as the above-mentioned 
Ammon. From that time (A.D. 340) the intro- 
duction of the monastic life into Italy must be 
dated. [Athanasius, Vol. I. p. 188 ; cf. Hieron. 
Ep. ad Princip. Epitaph. Marccllae ; Baron. An. 
340, n. 7.] Even the very discipline of Western 
monasticism was modelled upon that of Mitria, 
as Cassianus introduced the knowledge of it into 
Gaul by his treatises, De Institutis Senuntian- 
tittm, and the CoUationes Patrvm in &:ithico 
Eremo Commorantium, the latter of which St. 
Benedict ordered to be read daily by his dis- 
ciples. [Cassianus.] This connexion between 
Gaul and Mitria was maintained during the 4th 
century, as we see from the conclusion of 
Jerome's treatise against Vigilantius, where he 
mentions the haste of the Gallic monk, Sisinnius. 
" who is about to proceed to Egypt for the relief 
of the saints," as an excuse for the brevity of his 
treatise. Sisinnius was the messenger of Em- 
peri us of Toulouse, liiparius, and Desiderius, and 
carried their alms to the ascetics of Egypt (cf. 
Hieron. Prolog, in Zachar.). [Exupkrius.] 
For other instances of this Eastern and Syrian 
connexion with southern Gaul, cf. Boeckh. Corp. 
Insariptt. Grace. 9886, 9891-93 ; Le Blant, 
Chre~t. Insariptt. en Gaule, i. p. 324. These inscrip- 
tions seem to relate to a regular Syrian colony 
settled at Aries and Vienne, about 450. From 
the above-named works of Cassianus, together 
with the Sistoria Lausiaca of Palladius, the 
Monumenta of Cotelerius, and Snlpicius Seve- 
ros, Dialogue I., the curious reader will gain 
the most ample details of the life, conversation, 
discipline, and religious observances of the 
Mitrian communities in the 4th and 5th centuries 
(Ceill. vii. 486; Du Pin, H. E. i. 425, ed. Dub- 
lin, 1723). [Palladius.] Towards the conclu- 
sion of the 4th century they were torn with 
religious controversy. On the one hand, a sec- 
tion of the Mitrian monks, led by Pathomius, 
embraced anthropomorphism [Anthropomor- 
phitae], while, on the other hand, the vast 
majority of them followed the opinions of 
Origen, for which they were violently perse- 
cuted, even to death, by Theophilus, the patri- 
arch of Alexandria (A.D. 401), and roundly 
denounced by Jerome. (Cf. Correspondence be- 
tween Jerome and Theophilus among Hieron. 
Epp. ; Sulpic Sever. /. c. ; Meander, H. E. 
iv. 464-66.) [Theophilus, Chrysostom.] 
This Origenistic tendency reproduced itself in 
Cassianus and his followers in Gaul (Milman, 
Hist, of Lot. Christ, t. i. 165-170, ed. 1867). It 
also prepared the way for that Monophysitc 
view of our Lord's person, which the Mitrian 
monks, in common with the whole Egyptian 
church, maintained from the 5th century 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



Joannes Moschus tells us that in his time — 
the beginning of the 7th century— the Nitrian 
monks numbered three thousand fire hundred, 
and gives us interesting details of the inner life 
of the monasteries at that time in his works, as 
published by Cotelerius in Hon. Eccles. Grate., 
and in the Vitae Patr. or Hat. Eremit. in 
Migne's Patr. Lot. lxxiii., lxxiv., wherein will be 
found many of the ancient works already 
referred to in this article. After the invasion 
of the Saracens we principally depend upon the 
Arab historians for information, the chief of 
them being al-Makrizi, who died a.d. 1441. 
His History of the Copts was published with a 
German translation by Wiistenfeld, at Gttttingen, 
in the Abhandlung. der Konigl. Gcseltsch. der 
Wissensch. Bd. iii. and separately at the same 
place in 1845. The writings of Severus, bishop 
of Ashrounin, whose works form the founda- 
tion of Renaudot's Hist. Pat. Alex., and of 
Georgius al-Makim (a.d. 1273), another Chris- 
tian writer, also help to throw light on their 
mediaeval history. It is, however, with the 
history of the Convent of St. Mary Deipara, or 
of St. Suriani, as it is often called in modern 
works, that we must now deal. It is one of the 
four remaining out of the fifty or sixty which 
existed twelve hundred years ago. It is said 
to have been founded by a holy man named 
Honnes, whose tree is still shewn a conple of miles 
south of the convent. It was originally con- 
nected with the Syrian Monophysites, perhaps in 
some such way as to this day different nations 
are represented among the religious houses on 
Mount Athos. We find fairly conclusive evi- 
dence in the history of John of Ephesns that 
this Syrian monastery existed as such in his 
time— the middle of the 6th century — as we are 
told how that three bishops came to Nitria, and, 
by force, compelled the Syrian Theodore, who 
then presided over a monastery there, to accept 
the patriarchate of Alexandria (John of Eph. 
H. E. trans, by R. P. Smith, p. 262). This 
Syrian monastery seems ever to have been the 
most literary of the societies, as the school of 
Edessa, with which it was probably connected, 
was the most active and speculative of its age. 
They had strict rules for their library, and the 
members seem to have been bound to add a 
volume each to its stores, which were still 
further enlarged by gifts from private families 
in Syria, which practice continued so late as the 
11th cent., as we learn from inscriptions still 
existing on the MSS. It was fortunate, too, in 
its abbat, when the ages of literary darkness 
were settling down over the West. A certain 
Moses entered the convent A.D. 907, bringing 
with him the book of Ecclesiasticus as a present 
from the family of Abu '1-Bashar Abdu 'ltah of 
Tagrit (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS., No. cliv.). 
He was abbat in 927, in which year he was sent 
to Bagdad to procure from the caliph the remis- 
sion of the poll-tax demanded from the monks. 
Having been successful in this, he journeyed 
through Mesopotamia and Syria, and returned in 
932, bringing with him 230 volumes, which can 
be still recognised. In the same age Ephraim, 
or Abraham, patriarch of Alexandria A.D. 977-81, 
was a liberal donor to its library ; and even as 
late as the beginning of the 16th century the 
abbat Severus tried to do something similar, but 
evil days of ignorance had come, when even the 

preservation of the books was difficult. They 
were repaired and bound in 1194, 1222, 1493, 
and in 1624, when the library contained 403 
volumes ; but these successive reparations were 
the cause of the destruction of several of the 
most ancient and valuable MSS., especially 
those of classical authors. Some of them have- 
been restored as palimpsests. We now come to- 
the history of the convent and its library in later 
times. The first modern notice of the Nitrian 
MSS. which we discover is in Gassend's Life of 
X. C. F. de Peiresc, p. 269, Paris, 1641, where 
we are told that a Franciscan monk, Egidius 
Loehiensis, informed that scholar of their 
existence in the year 1633. Some persons in 
Europe must have previously known of them, as 
we find several of them in libraries prior to that 
date, and specially two splendid ones in the 
Ambrosian Library at Milan. Visits in search of 
MSS. have been paid to Nitria by the following 
persons — by Robert Huntington, A.D. 1678, then 
chaplain at Aleppo, and afterwards provost of 
Trinity College, Dublin, and bishop of Raphoe, 
whose fine collection of oriental manuscripts now 
adorns the Bodleian Library (Huntingtoni Epp. 
ed. Smith, 1704, Ep. xxxix.) ; by the Assemanis, 
Elias and his cousin Joseph Simon, in 1707, 
1715, and 1716, an account of whose mission 
will be found in their Biblioth. Oriental, t. i. 
praef. sec. vii. ; by the Jesuit Claude Sicard ia 
Dec. 1712, and again with J. S. Assem. in 1716 ; 
by Gen. Andreossy in 1799 (Mfm. sur la Valle'e 
des Lacs de Natron) ; by Lord Prudhoe in 1828 j 
by Hon. R. Curzon in 1837 (Monasteries of tha- 
Levant); and by Archdeacon Tattam in 1838, 
who went looking for MSS., serviceable towards- 
a Coptic edition of the Bible. He on that occa- 
sion secured fifty Syriac MSS., which included 
the Theophania of Eusebius, which Dr. S. Lee 
forthwith edited and published a.d. 1842. The 
interest excited by this discovery led to the 
despatch of Mr. Tattam a second time in 
1842, who secured a further consignment of 
two hundred volumes, which arrived at the 
British Museum March 1, 1843. It was now 
thought that all the treasures of Nitria were ex- 
hausted, and Cureton wrote his celebrated 
article in the Quarterly Jteview of Dec. 1845- 
(vol. lxxvii.), under this impression; but the 
monks had been too long trading on them to part 
with all at once, notwithstanding the most 
solemn bargains. In 1844 Tischcndorf paid 
them a visit, and got some more. And now 
the spirit of deception spread from the monks to- 
others. Auguste Pacho, a native of Egypt, was 
sent from London in 1847 to search for more 
MSS. He obtained several, but only handed 
over a part of them to the English authorities ia 
November of that year. He obtained others, 
which he disposed of, partly to the Museum ia 
1851, and partly to the Imperial Library of St. 
Petersburg in 1852. Even since 1870 rumours- 
have been current of large quantities of MSS. 
being still for sale in Cairo or Alexandria, and 
one at least of importance has been secured by 
the famous Egyptologist, Dr. Brugsch, and sold 
to the Prussian Government. The full value of 
these MSS. has scarcely been yet ascertained. They 
have had, indeed, one important indirect result 
already in the vast development of Syriac studies- 
within the last thirty years. The specimens 
which have been as yet translated by Lee, 

Digitized by 



Cureton, Smith, and others, such as the Festal 
Epistles of Athanasius, the Theophania of 
Lusebius, and the Ecclesiastical History of John 
bishop of Ephesus, throw much light on 
cent, iv.-vi. That of the Ephesian bishop is 
specially valuable as treating history from the 
standpoint of a Monophysite, for in general all 
the writings of heretics, real or reputed, have 
been destroyed. Canon Cnreton's Terdict upon 
them is this : — "The contents of these MSS. are 
most important. The copies of the Holy Scrip- 
tures are some of the oldest in existence, and the 
translations of the works of the great fathers of 
the church are most valuable. Moreover, this 
collection contains several really important 
works, of which the Greek copies have been long 
since lost, and are now only known to us either 
by their titles, or by being short extracts pre- 
served by other writers. Besides, there are 
many original works of Syriac authors." For 
an exhaustive account of the whole collection in 
its different aspects, its biblical, historical, philo- 
sophic, and scientific value, the handwriting of 
the MSS., the binding, and the very materials 
thereof, the instruments used for writing, see 
the preface prefixed to Wright's Catalogue of 
&friac MSS. in Brit. Mas. The catalogue itself, 
which has been the work of many years, gives 
an analysis of each MS., and is the best substi- 
tute for those translations which may alter very 
ranch oar views of early ecclesiastical history. 
Among them we may, in conclusion, notice that 
Dr. Wright has discovered a work often quoted 
in this Dictionary, viz. the most ancient Chris- 
tian martyrology. Its date Wright fixes for a 
few years prior to 412, some time at the close 
«f the 4th century. He published it in the 
Journal of Sac. Liter, t. viii. ed. Cowper, pp. 
43, 423, January, 1866. In addition to the 
articles of Canon Cureton and Dr. Wright's pre- 
&ce, already quoted, and to which this article 
•wes much, the reader may consult Cureton's 
prefaces to the Syriac Gospels and to the Festal 
Epistles of St. Athanasius ; Hahn's Fathers of 
tie Desert, ed. Dalgairns ; and for an account of 
the present state cf Nitria Sir Gardner Wilkin- 
son's Modern Egypt and Thebes, t. i. pp. 382-399. 

[G. T.S.] 

NTVARDUS (Nivo), ST., 25th archbishop 
of Bheims, was a brother of St. Gondebertns 
the martyr, and according to some of royal 
Mood (tee Boll. Acta SS. Sept. i. 268 for his 
family). He had lived in the court of Austrasia 
before his accession to the episcopate (circ. A.D. 
650). The church of Rheims he found in an 
impoverished condition which he set himself to 
remedy. His influence at court enabled him to 
obtain various privileges, and by purchasing 
here and exchanging there he extended and 
consolidated the estates (cf. Flodoardus, Hist. 
Ex/. Rem. ii. 7, Migne, Patr. Lat. exxxv. 107- 
8 ; Boll. Aid. p. 270). With the consent of the 
bishops assembled at a council of Nantes (circ 
a.d. 658), he rebuilt the ruined monastery of 
Altumviliare (Hautvilliers) on the Marne, near 
Epernar, endowed it and granted it privileges, 
sad made St. Bercharius abbat (see Gall. Christ. 
it- 251, and Boll. p. 272 for this monastery ; and 
BolL Acta SS. Oct. vii. 993, seqq. for Ber- 
caarias). He also gave a church to the monas- 
tery of St. Basolus (Saint-Basle) at Verzy (see 




Gall. Christ, ix. 195). After a long episcopate, 
extending apparently over a great part of the 
reigns of Clovis II., Clotaire III., and Childeric II. 
(a.d. 638-73), he died at Hautvilliers, and was 
either bnried there, according to his 9th century 
biographer, Almannns, (Boll. Acta SS. Sept. i. 
283), or carried to Rheims and buried in the 
church of St. Remigius according to Flodoard 
(ibid.y. He is commemorated Sept. 1. For the 
history of his relics see Boll. ibid. p. 276-7. 

[S. A. B.] 
NIZIEB, ST. [Nicetius (4).] 

NOBILIUS, a bishop to whom St. Augustine 
wrote, excusing himself on the score of health 
and winter season from accepting an invitation 
to be present at the dedication of a new building, 
perhaps a church. (Ang. Ep. 269 al. 251.) 

[H. W. P.] 

NOCHAITAB, an heretical sect mentioned 
by Hippolytus, without explanation of their 
tenets (fief, viii. 20). * [G. 8.] 

NOETUS, a native of Smyrna according 
%o Hippolytus, but of Ephesus according to 
Epiphanius (llaer. 57), whose narrative is, how- 
ever, in other respects wholly derived from 
Hippolytus ; on this point, therefore, the tran- 
scriber probably made a mistake. He came from 
Asia Minor at any rate, whence Praxeas, some 
years before, had imported the same views as 
he taught. Hippolytus traces the origin of the 
Patripassian heresy at. Rome to Noetus, who, in 
his opinion, derived it from the philosophy of 
Heraclitus. Hippolytus expounds this at length 
in the Refutation, lib. ix. cap. 3-5, cf. x. 23. 
Noetus had a brother who assisted in his teach- 
ing, and whom he identified with Aaron, while 
claiming himself to be Moses. He came to 
Rome, where he converted Epigonus and Cleo- 
menes. He was summoned before the council 
of Roman presbyters, and interrogated about 
his doctrines. He denied at first that he had 
taught that " Christ was the Father, and that 
the Father was born and suffered and died," 
but his adherents increasing in number, he 
acknowledged before the same council, when 
summoned a second time, that he had taught 
the views attributed to him. " The blessed 
presbyters called him again before them and 
examined him. But he stood out against them, 
saying, What evil am I doing in glorifying one 
God ? And the presbyters replied to him, We 
too know in truth one God, we know Christ, we 
know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, 
and died even as He died, and rose again on the 
third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, 
and Cometh to judge the living and the dead; 
and these things which we have learned we 
allege.' Then after examining him they expelled 
him from the church. And he was carried to 
such a pitch of pride, that he established a 
school." Cf. Routh's Reliq. Sac t. iv. 243-248. 
As to the date of Noetus, Hippolytus tells us 
" he lived not long ago," in the opening words of 
his treatise against that heretic. Drs. Lipsius 
and Salmon think that this very treatise was 
used by Tertullian in his tract against Praxeas 
(Hippolytus Romanus in t. iii. p. 95 of this 
dictionary) while Hilgenfeld and Hamack date 
Tertullian's work between A.D. 206 and 210. 


Digitized by 





This would throw the treatise of Hippolytus 
back to A.D. 205, or thereabouts. From its lan- 
guage and tone, we would conclude that Noetus 
was then dead, a view which Epiphanius (Haer. 
57, cap. 1) expressly confirms, saying that he 
and his brother both died soon after their excom- 
munication, and were bnried without Christian 
rites. The period of hi* teaching at Rome must 
then hare been some few years previous to the 
year 205. Bnt the Refutation of Heresies gives 
us a farther note of time. In ix. 2, Hippolytns 
tells us that it was when Zephyrinus was mana- 
ging the affairs of the church that the school of 
Noetus was firmly established at Rome, and that 
Zephyrinus connived at its establishment 
through bribes. It is not possible, however, 
to approximate more closely to. the precise 
date, than to fix his excommunication and death 
about the year 200. Hippolytus (Refut. x. 23) 
tells us that a portion of the Montanists adopted 
the views of Noetus. He seems to have written 
some works, from which Hippolytus often 
quotes. The original authority for Noetus is of 
course Hippolytus, the precise references to 
which we have already given; Cf. the Libel I us 
Synodicus 20, concerning a pretended synod 
under Victor, which excommunicated Noetus and 
Sabellius. Die Quellm dcr aeltesten JCetzerije- 
schichte Ton R. A. Lipsius, Leipzig, 1875, pp. 
179-190. Haruack in, Herzog, Real-Encyclop. 
s.v. Mtmnrchianismiis. Hilgenfeld's Ketzerge- 
schickte, p. 616 [Pbaxeas] [Epioonus] ("Cleo- 
MENES]. [G. T. S.] 

NOMUS, one of the leading personages at 
Constantinople in the latter years of Theodosius 
II., with whom he was all-powerful — to tjjj 
oiitavpivn's tv x'P"^" tx uv ^pdyiiara (Labbe, 
Condi, iv. 407). Nomus filled in succession all 
the highest offices in the state. In 443 he was 
"magister officiorum " (Cod. Thevd. nov. p. 14, 
1) ; consul in 445 ; patrician in 449, the year 
of the infamous " Latrocinium." Nomus was 
the confidential friend of Chrysaphius the 
eunuch and shared with him the government of 
the emperor and the empire. Through their 
means Dioscorus of Alexandria and the Euty- 
chian doctrines he supported were brought into 
favour with the court, while the adherents of 
the orthodox faith, and especially Theodoret, 
against whom Dioscorus had a personal pique, 
were systematically depressed. Through his 
influence the feeble Theodosius was induced to 
publish a decree in 448 confining Theodoret to 
the limits of his diocese. The interesting series 
of letters, to the principal men of the empire, 
in which Theodoret, while observing the man- 
date, protested against its arbitrary character, 
contains several addressed to Nomus. He had 
had a short interview with the great man, which 
was curtailed by the serious illness, and its 
renewal prevented by the death, of a member of 
the family of Nomus. This gave rise to a short 
courteous letter of respectful sympathy (Theod. 
Ep. 58), followed by one of considerable length 
(Ep. 81), in which, after expressing his surprise 
that neither of his two former letters hod re- 
ceived any answer, he proceeds to defend him- 
self from the charges which hod been the osten- 
sible ground of the emperor's decree, and to 
recount the services he had rendered to the 
church during a quarter of a century, which 

had merited far different treatment, and close* 
with the earnest entreaty that as so much 
power rested in his hands, Nomus would take 
the trouble of acquainting himself with the 
real evils of the church, and use his authority to 
arrest them. Nomus still maintaining his 
former silence, Theodoret wrote again (Ep. 96), 
saying that he was quite unaware how he could 
have given him offence, and requesting him to 
tell him what his cause of complaint against 
him was, and thus give him an opportunity ot 
clearing himself. With the death of Theodosius 
and the accession of Marcian and Pulchcria, 
Nomus's power sensibly waned. He took, how- 
ever, a leading position as a high state official at 
the council of Chalcedon (Labbe, iv. 77, 475, 
&c). During the session of this council a libel 
or petition against him was presented by a 
nephew of Cyril, Athanasius by name, a presby- 
ter of Alexandria, who had come to Constan- 
tinople to seek redress for the ill-usage he and 
his family had sustained from Dioscorus, accus- 
ing Nomus of acts of violence and extortion by 
which he and his relatives had been reduced to 
beggary, and his brother had died of distress. 
(Labbe, iv. 407-410). [E. V.] 

NONNA (1), the mother of Gregory Nazi- 
anzen. She was a lady of good birth, the 
child of Christian parents, Philtatius and Gor- 
gonia, brought up in the practice of the Chris- 
tian virtues, of which she was so admirable an 
example. Her son describes in glowing terms 
the holiness of her life and the beautiful con- 
formity of all her actions to the highest stan- 
dards of Christian excellence. To her example, 
aided by her prayers, he ascribes the conversion 
of his father from the strange medley of pagan- 
ism and Christianity which formed the tenets 
of the Hypsistarian sect, to which by birth 
he belonged (Greg. Naz. Orat. 11, 19 ; farm. 1, 
2). We know of two other children of the 
marriage besides Gregory ; a sister named 
Gorgonis, probably older than himself, and a 
brother named Caesarius. It is unnecessary to- 
repeat what has been already said of the in- 
fluence of the pious example and instructions of 
such a mother in forming the character of the 
son whom she regarded as given in answer to 
her prayers, and whom before his birth she 
devoted to the service of God [Gbegobius 
Nazianzekcs, ii. p. 742, col. 2], Nonna's life 
was quiet and uneventful, though not devoid of 
the domestic sorrows which necessarily fail to 
the lot of the mother of a family (Orat. 19, 
p. 292). Her health was usually very robust, 
but in 371 the year preceding her son's reluc- 
tant elevation to the episcopate as bishop of 
Sasima, she suffered from a severe illness which 
caused the postponement of an intended visit of 
her son's to his friend Basil (Greg. Naz. Ep. 4). 
But on arriving at her house he found the crisis 
of her disorder passed, her recovery being 
ascribed by her to a vision, in which she had 
been fed by her son wiih cakes of bread marked 
with a cross, and blessed by him (Greg. Naz. 
Orat. 9, p. 306). Three years later, 374, the 
elder Gregory died, and bis widow only survived 
him a very short time. The date of ber death 
is placed with great probability on Aug. 5 (on 
which day Nonna is commemorated both by the 
Greek and Latin churches), in the year 374 {Orat. 

Digitized by 



19, p. S15 ; Cart*. 1, p. 9). (TiUcmont, Mem. 
Ecdis. torn. iz. pp. 309-311; 817, 318, 322, 
385, 397.) * [E. V.] 

NONNA (2), one of the three daughters of 
Gorgonia, the sister of Gregory Nazianzen, 
called after her maternal grandmother, whose 
virtues she appears to have been very far from 
imitating, as she and her sister Eugenia are spoken 
of by Gregory Nazianzen in his will as un- 
deserving of notice from their reprehensible life. 
This may however mean no more than that, 
having been devoted to a life of virginity by 
their mother (Greg. Naz. Grat. 11, p. 180), they 
declined to accept such a vocation, for which 
they were not fitted. (Tillemont, Mem. Ecclis. 
torn. ix. p. 704, notexvi.) [E. V.] 

NONNA (8), ST. (NouurrA, Non, Notra), 
mother of St. David. A legendary life of her 
existed a.v. 1281, in the service book of her 
church at Alternun, in Cornwall. This is close 
by Davidstow, and St. David's Welsh name, 
Dewi, is preserved in the local pronunciation, 
Dewstow. Her feast day was 3rd March, two 
days after the date of her son's death. Several 
places in Cornish parishes, such as Creed and 
Pelynt, and in Bradstone, just across the Tamar 
in Devon, were sacred to her, and a mystery 
play written in her honour existed in Brittany 
before the 12th century (Buhez Santez Nonn. 
ed. Sionnet). St. Nun's pool in Alternun was 
famous for the cure of lunacy. An inscription 
at Tregony (Buhner's Inscriptions Britannia* 
Ctrittkmae, No. 10) reads Nonnita, Ercili, Viri- 
cati, tris 61i Ercilinci, which shews the existence 
of the name in Cornwall. As Cornwall and 
South Wales were evidently under the same 
dynasty, and kindred chiefs ruled in Brittany, 
the wandering Celtic saints found a home in each 
without difficulty. Rees gives the names of 
several churches in Wales dedicated to her, all 
in the immediate neighbourhood of churches 
escribed to St. David. (Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 
98; William of Worcester, 164; Rees, Welsh 
SaiaU. 162-166, 180, 200, 341.) [C. W. B.] 

NONNICHIUS, (NuNEcmnO, 10th bishop 
of Nantes, A.D. 472, signed the acts of the coun- 
cil of Vannes, and had a converted Jew specially 
recommended to him by Sidonius Apollinaris 
(Migne, Pat. Lat. t. lviii. 611, Ep. 13; Binius, 
Cone. ii. 421 ; Gall. Chr. xiv. 797; Tillem. xvi. 
234: Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. x. 394). [J. G.] 

NONNICHIUS (2) H. (Ntnnncmus Moni- 

bishop of Nantes, succeeding his cousin Felix 
(117) in 582, and thought by the Sammarthani, 
but without grounds, to have been the count of 
Limoges in the following article (Gall. Chr. xiv. 
800; Greg. Tur. H. F. vi. 15). Gregory of 
Tours (Afirac S. Martin, iv. 27) relates that he 
brought his infirm servant to the church of St. 
Martin at Tours on a feast day of the saint, and 
after the services took him home cured. The 
stme author (H. F. viii. 43) mentions that the 
sen of Nonnichias was suspected of being con- 
cerned in the death of Domnola, the wife of 
Xectarius. Nonnichus is mentioned by Venantius 
Fortunatus in his Life of Germamu (cap. 60 in 
Patr. Lat. lxxxviii. 472). [C. H.] 

NONNICHIUS (3), count of Limoges in the 
reign of Chilperic, occasioned the spread of false 



accusations against Charterius bishop of Peri 
gueux, 582. Two months afterwards he died 
(Greg. Tur. B. F. vi. 22 ; Aimoin, G. F. iii. 48 
in Bouquet, iii. 89 ; Gall. Chr. ii. 1453). 

[C. H.] 

NONNITUS (1), bishop of Gerona, in Cata- 
lonia, sncceeded Joannes Biclarensis, 621, and 
died 633 (Gams, Ser. Episc. 32). He was a 
monk, and continued to rule by example rather 
than command (Ildefonsus, De Vir. III. c. 10, ap. 
Migne, Pat. Lat. xcvi. 203; Fleury, H. E. 
xxxvii. c 46 ; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. xi. 699). 

[J. G.] 

NONNITUS (2), said to have been the fint 
bishop of Seville after the Saracen conquest. 
(Ftp. Sag. ix. 235.) [F. D.] 

NONNOSUS (l),son of Abraham, a priest, 
was sent by the emperor Justinian on an embassy 
to Caisus king of the Saracens, to Elesbaan, 
king of the Anxumites, and to the Homerites. 
After many dangers he returned and wrote a 
history of his journey, but we now possess only 
an abridgment by Photius (Cod. 3 ; Corp. Scrip. 
Hilt. Byz. Bonn, 1829, pt. i. 478, sq. ; Hoes- 
chelius, Bibl. Photo, Ant. 1611, pp. 6-7 ; Fabri- 
cius, Bibl. Or. vi. 239), omitting the fabulous 
and condensing details. His father Abraham, 
and grandfather Nonnosus, had been sent on 
similar missions. He lived about A.D. 540 
(Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 519 ; Ceillier, Aut. Sacr. xt 
280 ; Smith. Diet. Gr. and R. Biog. ii. 1208). 

[J. G.] 

NONNOSUS (8), provost of a monastery on 
Mount Soracte, to whom miracles were attri- 
buted. (Greg. Mag. Dial. i. 7 ; Epp. lib. iii. ind. 
xi. ep. 51 in Patr. Lat. lxxvii. ; Oeill. xi. 474 ; 
Dupin, i. 580, ed. 1722.) [C. H.] 

NONNOSUS (8), a person of station, whose 
request for a certain possession in 591 pope 
Gregorv the Great intends to comply with 
(lib. i. ind. ix. ep. 22 ; JaffiC E. P. num. 725). 


NONNUS (1), one of the leading inhabitants 
of the town of Zeugma, to whom, with others, 
Theodoret addressed a consolatory letter (Ep. 125) 
in the midst of the persecutions subsequent to 
the " Latrocininm," 449, encouraging them in 
their struggle for the maintenance of the 
orthodox faith, which for their instruction he 
sets forth distinctly, guarding them from the 
opposite errors of Nestorius and Eutyches. 

[E. V.] 

NONNUS (8) of Panopolis. The name is 
very common, being properly an Egyptian title 
equivalent to Saint. Consequently confusion has 
arisen between this writer and others of the 
same name. He has been identified, with some 
probability, with a Nonnus whose son is men- 
tioned by Synesius (Ep. ad Anastas. 42, ad Pyl. 
102); and, with very little probability, with 
the deacon Nonnus, secretary at the council of 
Chalcedon, A.r>. 451 ; or Nonnus, the bishop of 
Edessa, elected at the synod of Ephesus, a.d. 
449 ; or lastly with Nonnus the commentator 
on Gregory Nazianzen (vide Bentley, Phalaris 
ad in.). 

Life.—Ot his life we have no details. He was 
a native of Panopolis in Egypt ; cf. Eudocia, s. e. 

£ 2. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



Agathias, iv. p. 128 ; and an epigram In Anth. 
Graeca, i. p. 140. 

HovtMK eyit' Uovbt fiir «pi) irrfAtf. *Eif yapiy &i 

He is classed by Agathias among o{ yiot woiijrai, 
and this mention, supported by a comparison of 
his poems with the other late Epic writers, 
makes it probable that his date should be placed 
at the end of the fourth and beginning of the 
fifth century, A.D. Beyond this nothing is 
known for certain. The Dionysiaca shews fre- 
quently n knowledge of astronomy (cf. vi. 60, 
xxt. xxxviii. 4), and a special interest in 
Berytus (xli.), Tyre (xl.), and Athens (xlvii.), 
but whether this arises from a personal ac- 
quaintance with these towns is uncertain. In 
iv. 250, the discoveries of Cadmus are traced 
to Egypt, but otherwise there is no reference 
to his native country. The whole tone of the 
Dionysiaca, with its delight in the drunken im- 
moralities of Dionysus, makes it hard to believe 
that the poem was written by a Christian. Con- 
sequently there is a probability that this was 
a work early in life, that after it Nonnus was 
converted to Christianity, and that the para- 
phrase of St. John was written after his conver- 
sion. Possibly, as has been suggested, it may 
have been intended as a contrast to the Diony- 
siaca, portraying the life and apotheosis of one 
more worthy than Dionysus of the name of God. 
Possibly too, as has also been suggested, Nonnus 
may have been one of the Greek philosophers 
who accepted Christianity at the time of the 
destruction of heathen temples under the decree 
of Theodosius (Socr. Ecd. Hiit. v. 16). 

Work$. — Of his literary position it is possible to 
speak with more certainty. He was the centre, if 
not the founder, of the literary Egyptian school, 
which gave to Greek Epic poetry a new though 
short-lived brilliancy, and to which belonged 
Quintus of Smyrna, John of Gaza, Coluthus, 
Tryphiodorns, and Musaeus. This school revived 
the historical and mythological epic, but treated 
it in a style peculiar to itself, of which Nonnus is 
the best representative. While frequently pro- 
claiming himself an imitator of Homer, and 
shewing traces of the influence of Callimachus 
and later writers, he yet created new metrical 
rules, which gave an entirely new effect to the 
general rhythm of the poem. This was effected 
by the avoidance of the combination of two 
spondees, a frequent use of long, especially dac- 
tylic, compounds, and of the trochaic caesura in 
the third foot ; by a very sparing use of elision, 
contracted inflections, crasis and hiatus, which 
is very rare at the end of any foot, except the 
first and fourth, and rarer still in arsis. These 
rules are less strictly observed in the Paraphrase 
than in the Dionysiaca. The general effect is 
however in both that of an easy but rather 
monotonous flow, always pleasant, but never 
rising or falling with the tone of the narrative. 
The style is very florid, marked by a luxuriance 
of epithets and original compounds (often of 
very arbitrary formation), of elaborate peri- 
phrasis, and of metaphors often piled together in 
hopeless confusion ; and many unusual forms are 
invented (e.g. UktuKo, ayytXa, Bipaa), by false 
analogy. Point is gained by a fondness for sharp 
antithesis (cf. Paraph, iii. 5, tiUaKaXov ctvSpa 
S«8a<ncw,Tii. 52, M « M<M J M€ „ () , NucdSjj/wy apt>4«a, 


zl. 44, xviii. 31), and the repetition of an emphatic 
word or clause (cf. viii. 55 ; ix. 6, 9, 13 ; xiv. 8 ; 
xviii. 6, &c). So that he seems to deserve the 
title of \oyuararos applied to him by Eudocia 
(cf. Lehrs, Quaest. Epicae. p. 253; Ludwich, 
BcitrSge zur Kritik des Nonnus. Regiomonti, 
1873 ; and the references in Bernhardy, Oi-und- 
riss dcr Gr. Lit. § 99, 4). 

The Dionysiaca attributed to Nonnus by Aga- 
thias (nil s.) is a history of the birth, conquests 
and apotheosis of Dionysus, spun out at such great 
length that the main thread is almost lost. The 
poem commences with a description of the chaos 
existing in the world and the sadness of human 
life before the birth of Dionysus, narrating 
incidentally (iv. 250 sqq.) the introduction of 
civilisation and the first elements of the worship 
of the first Dionysus into Greece from Egypt 
(i.— vi.) ; then comes an account of the birth 
and education of Dionysus, and his early con- 
nexion with the Satyrs (vii.-xii.); then, as 
the central point, his attack on India and con- 
quest of its leaders and maidens (xiii.-xl.) ; then 
the return to Syria and Greece, the conquest of his 
foes there, and the apotheosis in Olympus after 
he has begotten a child to take his place on earth 
(xli.-xlviii.). The whole seems a fanciful treat- 
ment of the Dionysiac legend, altered partly by 
the poet's own imagination erecting Ampelus, 
Staphyle, Botrys, &c, into real personages ; 
partly perhaps by the influence of Alexander's 
similar conquest of India. The idea of the triple 
incarnation of Dionysus and the fantastic shapes 
that he assumes may perhaps be due to an 
Oriental influence, and a careful examination of 
the Indian names might repay the efforts of 
Indian scholars. The whole poem has been 
regarded "as an allegory of the march of civili- 
sation across the ancient world ;" but it would 
be simpler, and we hope truer, to describe it as 
"the gradual establishment of the cultivation 
of the vine and the power of the Wine-God." 

The chief editions are those of Falkeubourg. 
Antwerp, 1569 ; Lectius, with Latin transl. in 
Corp. Poet. Gr. ii. Gen. 1606. Cunaeus, Hanau. 
1605; Graefe, Leipzig, 1819-26. Passow, 
Leipzig, 1834 ; Le Comte de Marcellus, with 
interesting introduction, French transl. and 
notes, in Didot's Bibl. Gratca, Paris, 1856. 
Kochly with apparatus criticus, Leipzig, 1857, 
cf. Ouwarow, St. Petersburg, 1817. Kohler, 
iiber die Dion, det Nonnus, Halle, 1853. 

(2) Paraphrase(lttTa0o\4)ofSt.John'sGospel, 
attributed to Nonnus by Eudocia (Viol. 311). 

This is a fairly faithful paraphrase of the 
whole of the Gospel. It seems impossible to 
decide exactly what text was used by Nonnus. 
On the whole it seems to approximate most to 
that represented by C. and L. among the MSS., 
and by the Memphitic version (cf. i. 24, iii. 15, 
vi. 69, vii. 8, viii. 39, ix. 35, xii. 41). In i. 3 it 
seems to agree with the Memph. v., and St. 
Chrysostom as against all best uncials and the 
Alexandrine interpretation, while in L 28, iii. 
13, xii. 28 (?) it follows A. 

The text is faithfully treated. The omissions, 
except when he has MSS. authority (e.g. v. 1, 4 ; 
vii. 53 sqq.), are rare (v. 1, 29; iv. 27, 41, 42 ; 
vi.41,53; viii. 38; xviii. 16,18). The additions 
are chiefly those of poetical expansion, remind- 
ing ns of modern attempts to make the scene 
graphic or portray the feelings of the actors. 

Digitized by 



Homeric epithets form a strange medley with the 
Palestinian surroundings, and in many cases the 
illustrations are drawn out into insipid details 
(cf. iv. 26, vii. 21, xviii. 3, xx. 7). At other 
times we have interpretations suggested, in 
most of which he agrees with the Alexandrine 
tradition as represented by Cyril and Origen, 
cf. i. 16, 24, 42 (Peter's name); vi. 71 (the 
motive of Judas); vii. 19 (the reference to the 
Sixth Commandment) ; viii. 40 (the hospitality 
of Abraham); xii. 6, 10; xviii. 15 (lx8u$S\ou 
vaoi T<x>"is) ; xix. 7. In some of these inter- 
pretations he seems obviously wrong ; e.g. ii. 12 
i&ntS(Kipi6/tos) ; ii. 20, x. 12 (the reference to 
Solomon); vii. 28 (Injiuv); xi. 44, oovtipiov, 
explained as a Syrian word; while in ii. 4. 
t( iuh yirai 4)e «al avrp, looks like an attempt to 
avoid a slight to her who is constantly called 


He shews too a looseness in the nse of theo- 
logical terms (cf. i. 3, juufloj ; 1, 50, xi. 27, \iyos) 
which with the luxuriance of periphrasis forms 
a striking contrast with the simplicity and 
accuracy of St. John. 

The Paraphrase was frequently edited in the 
16th century. The chief editions are those 
of Aldus, Venice, 1511; Nansios, Lngd. Bat., 
1589-93; Sylburg, 1596 ; Heinsius, Aristarchus 
Sacer, Lugd. Bat. 1627; Passow, Leipzig, 1834; 
Le Comte de Marcellus, with French transl. and 
Botes, 1860. It will also be found in Migne, 
vol. xliii. (with the notes of Heinsius and of Le 
Comte de Marcellus) ; De la Bigne, Bibl. Palrum, 
Appendix; Mansi, Bibl. Patr. vi. (ed. 1618), 
ii. (ed. 1677). For an account of the MSS., cf. 
Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. viii. p. 601 ; Kinkel, die 
Ueberlieferuag des El. Joh. ton Nonnus, Zurich, 
1870 ; Kochly, de Er. Joh. Paraphrati a Nonno, 
Zurich, I860). See also a series of articles in 
the Wiener Stvdien for 1880 and 1881. 


Among the Greek MSS. lately discovered in 
the Fayum in Egypt has been found a fragment 
of an Epic poem, which Dr. Stern, of Berlin, 
attributes to the circle of Greek poets in Egypt, 
•f which Nonnus was the centre. [G. T. S.] 

NONNUS (8X commentator on Gregory 
Hazianzen's In Julianum Imp. mvectivae duae : 
his Greek scholia are given in Montague's 
edition of that work, Eton, 1610, and Greg. 
Naz. Opp. ii. Paris, 1630. By Fabricius (Bibl. 
Grate, vii. 682, 690) he is called Palaestinus, 
and the period assigned to him is the middle 
of the 6th century. The commentary by Nonnus 
is full of mistakes and of little value (Cave, 
Hist. Lit. i. 249 ; Ceillier, Ant. Sacr. v. 247, here 
called an abbat in the 5th centurv; Bentlcy, 
Via. Phal. i. 94 sq. Lond. 1836). [J. G.J 

NONNUS (4), bishop of Edessa. On the 
deposition of Ibas by the " Latrocinium " of 
Ephesus, a.d. 449, Nonnus was put in his place, 
and as bishop of Edessa attended the council of 
Chalcedon, A.D. 451. His name appears in the 
first day's proceedings (Labbe, iv. 328, 373, 450, 
467, 495, 553, 569), but after the eighth session, 
in which Ibas was reinstated in his see, his name 
disappears (Facund. Herm. lib. v. c. 3). Both 
however signed the decree of faith promulgated 
by the council, Nonnus as " bishop of the city 
sf the Edessenes," Ibas as "bishop of Edessa" 



(Labbe, iv. 582, 586). On the restoration of 
Ibas, the episcopal dignity was specially reserved 
to Nonnus, and the consideration of his case was 
committed to Maximus bishop of Antioch (ibid. 
678). On the death of Ibas, Oct. 28, 457, 
Nonnus returned to the see of Edessa, and as 
metropolitan of Osrhoene headed the signatures 
to the reply to Leo's letter in that year (ibid. 
891, 917). A difficult question has been raised 
whether Nonnus of Edessa was the same with 
Nonnus of Heliopolis, the converter of the 
notorious actress and courtesan Pelagia of 
Antioch, whose biography was written by James 
the deacon. The circumstances of this conver- 
sion are fully detailed elsewhere [Jacobus (40) ; 
Pelaqia]. Baronius (Martyrol. Oct. 8), follow- 
ing Nicephorus (H. E. xiv. 30) and Theophanes 
(CAron. p. 79), regards them as the same. This 
is also accepted by Vossius (de Hist. Graec. lib. 
ii. c. 20) and by Gams (Series Episc.) on the 
view that after he was obliged to give way to 
Ibas he was translated to Heliopolis, which city 
he converted to the faith (Roswcid. Vit. Patr. 
p. 379), and thence on the death of Ibas re- 
turned to Edessa. This hypothesis is combated 
by Tillcmont (Mem. Eccles. torn. xii. p. 664, 
Note sur Sainte Pelagie). [E. V.] 

NONNUS (6), bishop of Amid 505 ; ap- 
pointed at the request of the people by the 
patriarch Flavian, in succession to John who 
had died before the city was taken (Jan. 503) 
by the Persians under Carades. He had pre- 
viously been a presbyter and oeconomus under 
John. He sent Thomas, his chorepiscopus, to 
Constantinople (Thomas ( )], as his deputy to 
the emperor Anastasius ; but Thomas treacher- 
ously intrigued against him, procured his depo- 
sition, and was consecrated in his room, within 
the same year. Flavian thereupon sent Nonnus 
to fill the vacant see of Seleucia, which he held 
until he was expelled as a Severian in 519. He 
then returned to his native Amid, where, on the 
death of Thomas the same year, he was, against 
his will, reappointed to the throne, but held it 
only three months, dying 519-20. He was suc- 
ceeded by Maras (a man of noble birth), also a 
Severian, who was soon after banished by Justin, 
and lived seven years in exile at Petra with his 
two virgin sisters. See farther, Thomas Harkl. 
(Chron. of Joshua Styl., c. 83, Wright's edition ; 
and ap. Assem. ii. 49.) [J. Gw.] 

NONNUS (6), bishop of Circesium, a Mono- 
physite and follower of Severus of Antioch. He 
was banished by the emperor Justin, a.d. 518- 
527. He survived till a.d. 532, at least he 
was one of the bishops attached to the party of 
Severus, who in that year had a conference at 
Constantinople with Hypatius of Ephesus and 
other Catholic prelates [HvPATitis (8)]. 

[G. T. S.] 

NOREA. According to an Ophite system 
reported by Irenaeus (i. 30) the sister of Seth ; 
in another system the name of the wife of 
Noah (Epiph. Boer. 26, p. 82). [See Horaea.] 
Epiphanius says that the real name of Noah's 
wife was not Norea but Parthenos, on which 
Lipsius ingeniously conjectures that in Norea 
the Hebrew TCiVZ is preserved of which rap- 
tiros is a translation. [G. 8.] 

Digitized by 




NOBOBEBT (Norbert), a presbyter to 
whom, when on his travels, Alcuin gave a letter 
of introduction to his friends (Ale. Ep. 211,Migne, 
161 Froben, in Opp. i. 221 Krob.). [C. H.] 

NORSESES I, Catholicus of Armenia for 
thirty-four yean towards the latter portion of 
4th century. Ammianus Marcellinus (lib. zrii. 
12) calls him Nicrses, son of Athenagoras, nephew 
of Hesychius, and grand-nephew of St. Gregory 
the Illuminator, He was present at the council 
of Constantinople, AJ>. 381. He was poisoned 
by Pharme, son of king Arsaces. [Armenians, 
t. i. p. 164.] (Le Quien, Orient Christ, i. 1375 ; 
Galanus, Hist. Armen. iii. 109.) [G. T. S.] 

NORSESES II., alios Nicrses, twenty-fifth 
Catholicus of Armenia. He succeeded Leontius, 
and held the national council of Tiben, A.D. 535, 
which consummated the division between the 
orthodox Greek and tho Armenian churches, as 
told nnder Armenians, t. i. p. 165. [G. T. S.] 

NOBSESES m. alias Nierses, thirty-third 
Catholicus of Armenia. He made in the early 
half of the 7th century an attempt, successful for 
a time, to reunite the Armenian and orthodox 
churches as told under Armenians, t. i. p. 165. 

[G. T. S.] 

NOTBUBG, ST. (Neitbubga, Notburg, 

Plectrude the wife of Pepin of Heristal. She 
was brought up by Plectrude, and lived with her 
at Cologne, in the palace which Plectrude made 
into a monastery, about 689. Notburg being 
threatened with a marriage suitable to her 
rank, prayed to be delivered by death from such 
a fate, and presently died, about A.D. 700. 
Supernatural lights ore said to have appeared at 
her head and at her feet, in testimony to her 
holiness. She was venerated as a saint by 
the people of Cologne. Her day is Oct. 31. 
(Surius, De Probatis Sanctorum Historiis, v. 
1006, 1007, edit. Col. Ag, 1570 j Le Cointe, An- 
nates Ecclesiae Franoorwn, iv. 213, 214, ann. 
689 ; Brower, Annates Trevirenses, lib. vii. 362. 
Her name is in the Auctaria of Greven and Mo- 
lanus to Usuard, Oct. 31, Migne, exxiv. 641, 
642.) [A. B. C. D.] 

NOTHBALD (Northbald, Nodbaldcs), 
the ninth abbat of St. Augustine's. The dates 
assigned to him are a.d. 732-748 (Hon. Angl. 
i. 120, 121 ; Elmham, ed. Hardwick, pp. 10, 
302-316; Thorn, ap. Twysden, cc. 1772, 2235, 
2236). According to the monastic authorities, 
Nothbald received the benediction from arch- 
bishop Tatwin (Thorn, c. 1772), and the later 
historian, Elmham, adds that be was elected by 
the brethren after a proper licence had been 
obtained from the king of Kent, and in con- 
formity with the decree of Augustine (p. 302). 
The same writer mentions the abbat's friendship 
with archbishop Nothelm (t6. p. 312). Nothing 
definite is recorded of his abbacy. The place of 
his burial was unknown, but Elmham gives a 
traditionary epitaph (p. 316) : 

" Nottabftldl mores rutilant Inter senlores 
CnJus erat vita sublectis norma pollta." 


NOTHBEBT (Northbert), the second 
bishop of Elmham after the division of the East 


Anglian dioceses (.Won. Hist. Brit. p. 618 ; W- 
Malmesbury, 0. P. p. 148). He is known only 
from the fact that his name occurs in the ancient 
lists, between those of Beadwin and Heatholac 
The last trace of Beadwin's existence occurs in 
A.D. 693 (Kemble, C. D. 36), and Hentholac first 
appears in Bede's list of contemporary bishops 
in 731 ; (ff. E. v. 23). Between these limits 
Nothbert's episcopate must have fallen, and ac- 
cordingly his name is attached as subscribing to 
the grant of Oshere to the monastery of Evesham, 
which is dated A.D. 706 (Kemble, C. D. 56) ; and to 
the decree of the council of Clovesho of a.d. 716, 
in which the privilege of king Wihtrcd was con- 
firmed (Haddan and Stubbs, iii 300). [S.] 

NOTHEABD, presbyter of the diocese of 
Winchester, present at the council of Clovesho, 
Oct. 12, 803 (Kemble, C. D. 1024). [C. H.] 

NOTHELM (1), kine of the South Saxons, 
known to us only from a charter by him in 
the chapter library at Chichester printed by 
Kemble (G D. num. 995). He grants to his 
sister Nothgitha lands in Lydesige, Aldingburne, 
Genstedegate, Mundhame, for the erection of a 
monastery and church. The charter bears its 
own date " anno ab incarnatione Christi 692," 
and is subscribed by Nunna king of the South 
Saxons, VVattus king, Cocnred king of the West 
Saxons, Ine, Eadberht bishop, Aldhelm and 
Hagnna abbats. [Osmund (3)J [C. H. j 

NOTHELM (8), tenth archbishop of Canter- 
bury. He was a priest of the church of London, 
St. Paul's, and a common friend of Bede and 
Albinus, abbat of St. Augustine's, who com- 
municated through him to the venerable his- 
torian all that he knew of the early history of 
the Kentish church. Nothelm himself, some 
time between 715 and 731, visited Rome, and 
searched the records of the holy set by permis- 
sion of pope Gregory II. : bringing away copies 
of letters which were incorporated by Bede in 
his history. Thorn and Elmham, the historians 
of St. Augustine's, give Nothelm the title of 
arch-priest of St. Paul's (Elmh. p. 312 ; Thorn, 
c 1772), and he probably was not a monk. 
Archbishop Tatwin died on the 30th of June, 
734 ; the consecration of Nothelm as his succes- 
sor is dated by the Continuator of Bede in 735, 
and possibly may have been performed by Egbert 
of York, who just at that crisis received his 
pall from Gregory III. In 736 he received his 
own pall from the same pope, and afterwards 
consecrated three bishops, Cuthbert of Hereford, 
Ethelfrith of Elmham, and Herewald of Sher- 
borne. The same year he received a letter from 
St. Boniface, asking for the Responsiones of St. 
Gregory to Augustine, as to whether a man might 
marry a woman for whose son he had been 
sponsor, and in what year St. Gregory sent his 
mission to Britain (Mon. Mognnt. ed. JafiiS, no. 
30 ; Comdis, Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 335, 336). 
Nothelm certainly held one ecclesiastical council 
in 736 or 737, attended by nine bishops of the 
province ; one act, by which he ordered the re- 
storation of • charter concerning an estate at 
Withington to the abbess Hrotwari, is preserved 
in the Worcester Cartulary ; (Kemb. C. D. no. 82, 
Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 338). This act u de- 
scribed as a decree of a sacred synod. Nothelm's 

Digitized by 



• appears in another charter as corroborating 
a record in April 738 (Keroble, C. D. no. 86). 

He died after a pontificate of five years on 
the 17th of October, probably in the year 739 : 
(Cont. Bed. M. B. B. 288; see Haddan and 
Stubbs, iii. 335), bnt as his (accessor was ap- 
pointed in 740 his death is sometimes advanced 
a year. Cnthbert was certainly archbishop in 

A short poetical life of Nothelm containing 
ten lines only, and no particulars, is printed 
from a Lambeth MS. in Wharton's Anglia Sacra, 
ii. 71. The historians of St. Augustine's add to 
our information about him only that he was a 
patron of Abbat Northbald (Elmham, 312), and 
kit epitaph in four lines of Latin verse. As he 
was not a monk he does not seem to have caught 
the fancy of the Benedictine Annalists : but in 
the Bollandist Acts, October, vol. iii. pp. 117- 
124, there is an article on his history. 

His career as archbishop is unfortunately ob- 
scure ; coinciding as it does with one of the 
darkest portions of Kentish history, and with 
the period of the greatest illumination in the 
church of York, any ray of historical light from 
Canterbury would have been doubly valuable. 
At it is, Bede's obligation to Nothelm daring his 
tenure of office at St. Paul's is the most impor- 
tant point about his history. 

The literary history of Nothelm elaborated by 
Leland (Seriptoret, p. 181) and Bale (ed. 1559, 
p. 100) m imaginary, or, to say the least, apo- 
cryphal. [S.] 

HOTHGITHA. [Nothelm (1).] 

NOTHLAN, bishop. [Nathalan.] 

NOUS. In the Valentinian system [Valek- 
tmus]. Nous is the first male Aeon. Together 
with his conjugate female Aeon, Aletheia, 
he emanates from the Propator Bythos and his 
coeternal Ennoia or Sige ; and these four form 
the primordial Tetrad. Like the other male 
Aeons he is sometimes regarded as bisexual, in- 
cluding in himself the female Aeon who is 
paired with him. He is the Only Begotten ; and 
is styled the Father, the Beginning of all, inas- 
much as from him are derived immediately or 
mediately the remaining Aeons who complete 
the Ogdoad, thence the Decad, and thence the 
Uodecad ; in all thirty, Aeons constituting the 
Pleroma. He alone is capable of knowing the 
Propator ; but when he desired to impart like 
knowledge to the other Aeons, was withheld 
from so doing by Sige. When Sophia, youngest 
Aeon of the thirty, was brought into peril by 
her yearning after this knowledge, Nous was 
foremost of the Aeons in interceding for bcr. 
From him, or through him from the Propator, 
Horns was sent to restore her. After her re- 
storation, Nous, according to the providence of 
the Pronator, produced another pair, Christ and 
the Holy Spirit, " in order to give fixity and 
stedfastness (««j lrvi^" "at OTqpi-yytov) to the 
Pleroma." For this Christ teaches the Aeons to 
be content to know that the Propator is in him- 
self incomprehensible, and can be perceived only 
through the Only Begotten(Nous). (Iren. Haeres. 
IL1-5j Hippol. Sef. ri. 29-31 ; Theod. Hatr. 
Fab. i. 7.) 

A similar conception of Nous appears in the 



later teaching of the Basilidean School [Basi- 
mdes], according to which he is the first 
begotten of the Unbegotten Father, and himself 
the parent of Logos, from whom emanate suc- 
cessively Phronesis, Sophia, and Dynamis. But 
in this teaching Nous is identified with Christ, 
is named Jesus, is sent to save those that be- 
lieve, and returns to Him who sent him, after a 
passion which is apparent only, — Simon the 
Cyrenian being substituted for him on the 
cross (Iren. 1. xxiv. 4 ; Theod. H. E. i. 4). It is 
probable, however, that Nous had a place in 
the original system of Basilides himself; for his 
Ogdoad, " the great Archon of the universe, the 
ineffable " (Hipp. vi. 25) is apparently made up 
of the fire members named by Irenaeus (as 
above), together with two whom we find in 
Clement (Strom, iv. 25), Dikaiosyne andEirenc, — 
added to the originating Father. 

The antecedent of these systems is that of 
Simon Magus (Hipp. vi. 12 ff. ; Theod. I. i.), 
of whose six "roots" emanating from 'the 
Unbegotten Fire, Nous is first. The correspon- 
dence of these " roots " with the first six Aeons 
which Valentinus derives from Bythos, is 
noted by Hippolytus (vi. 20). Simon says in 
his 'Aico<pa<ris /it-yaKi) (ap. Hipp. vi. 18). 
"There are two offshoots of the entire ages, 
having neither beginning nor end. ... Of these 
the one appears from above, the great power, 
the Nous of the universe, administering all 
things, male ; the other from beneath, the great 
Epinoia, female, bringing forth all things." 
To Nous and Epinoia correspond Heaven and 
Earth, in the list given by Simon of the six 
material counterparts of his six emanations. 
The identity of this list with the six material 
objects alleged by Herodotus (i.) to be wor- 
shipped by the Persians, together with the 
supreme place given by Simon to Fire as the 
primordial power, leads us to look to Persia for 
the origin of these systems in one aspect. In 
another, they connect themselves with the 
teaching of Pythagoras and of Plato. In the 
subsequent developments of Neoplatonism, Nous 
is prominent. To *Oe, Nov*, and Vvxhi consti- 
tute the Trinity of Plotiuus. [Neoi'LATOnism, 
p. 20.] (Harvey's Irenaeus, Prelim. Obss. ; 
Hansel's Gnostic Heresies.) [J. Gw.] 

NOVATIANISM. The members of this 
sect were called by themselves KaBapot (Euseb. 
H. E. vi. 43). They were called by others 
Novatiani (Pacian. Ep. i. sec. i.) ; Mundi 
(Ambr. de Poenit. lib. i. cap. i.)i NaudVoi, 
Nat/ariayol, 'KpurrtpoX, or 'Apitrrot (Soc. H. E. 
iv. 28 ; Cone. CP. can. vii. in Hef. ii. 366, 
Clark's ed. ; Timoth. CP. in Meursii Var. Div. 
Lib. pp. 121, 125) ; Nauariaful aiptotrai 
(Suidas), Montenses, Mon-ijffioi (Noris, Hist. 
Donat. Opp. iv. 301, ed. 1732, and Hef. ii. 
387, ed. Clark; cf. however Cod. Theod. ed. 
Haenel, p. 1550, which applies this name to 
Donatists) ; Sinistri, Scaevi (Bened. ed. in 
Ambr. Je Poenit. I. &). Offshoots of the sect 
are called Sabbatiani or 2a$0aTiwol in Cod. 
Theod. ed. Haen. pp. 1566, 1570, and Proto- 
paschitae in Cod. Theod. p. 1581. 

Novatianism was the first great schism in the 
church on a pure question of discipline. In 
Montanism questions of discipline were involved 
as side issues, but did not constitute its essential 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 




difference. All sects previous to Novatianism 
had erred on the doctrine of the Trinity. The 
Novatians alone were orthodox thereupon. The 
church therefore baptized even Montanists, 
while admitting Noratians by imposition of 
hands alone (Cone. Laodic. can. vii. viii. ; Hef. 
Councils, ed. Clark, t. ii. 303, 332 ; Cone. CP. 
can. vii. in Hef. /. c. ut sup. ; Pitra, Jur. Ecclcs. 
Graec. Hist. i. 430, 576). The reader will find 
in the articles on Cyprian, Novatian, and 
Novatus the circumstances which gave rise in 
a.d. 251 to the so-called Novatian sect. The 
principles, however, which Novatian formulated 
into a system, and to which he gave a name, 
took not their rise from him ; they existed and 
flourished long before. The origin of the Nova- 
tian schism must be sought in the struggle 
which, originating with The shepherd of Hermas 
(Baur, Church Hist, trans. Menzies, 1879, t. ii. 
p. 50, note ; cf. Ritschl, Entstchung der Althath. 
JCirche, 2nd ed. p. 529), had been raging at 
Rome for seventy years, at first with the 
Montanists and the followers of Tertullian, 
and then between Hippolytus and Callistus. 
Every one of the distinctive principles of 
Novatianism will be found advocated by some 
or all of them (Baur, /. c. p. 270, note). The 
Montanists rejected the lapsed, and in fact all 
who were guilty of mortal sins, Tertullian 
second marriages, as also did the strict dis- 
cipline of the 2nd century (Ambr. da Viduis, 
cap. ii. ; Lumper, Hist. S3. PP. iii. 95. De 
S. Athenag. ; Aug. Ep. ad Julian, do Viduit.). 
Hippolytus held, in a great degree, the 
same stern views. This identity in principle 
between Montanism and Novatianism has been 
noted by many ; both of the ancients and 
moderns, e.g. Epiph. Hacr. 59 ; Hieron. Opp. 
Migne, Pat. Lat. t. i. 188, Ep. ad Marcellam, 
457, Ep. ad Occanum ; t. vii. 697 cont. Jovinian. 
lib. ii. ; Gieseler, H. E. t. i. pp. 213-215, 284, 
ed. Clark ; Neander, Anti-Gnostic, t. ii. p. 362 ; 
Bunsen, Christ, and Mankind, t. i. 395, 428 ; 
Pressensc, Life and Pract. of Early Ch. lib. i. 
cap. 6, 7 ; Baur, /. c. pp. 124-126. Not with 
Montanism only, but also with Donatism is 
Novatianism allied, for it is the same question, 
viz. the treatment of the lapsed, which under- 
lay that schism as well. Other points of 
similarity between the three may just be noted. 
They all sprung up, or else found their most 
enthusiastic supporters in Africa. They each 
arose simultaneously with great persecutions. 
They were separated by periods of about fifty 
years. The two earliest of them at least, as wo 
shall have occasion to notice, proved their essen- 
tial oneness, uniting their ranks in Phrygia in 
the course of the 4th century. Novatianism 
may indeed be regarded as a conservative protest 
on behalf of the ancient discipline against the 
prevalent liberalism of the Koman church (Baur, 
/. c. p. 271). The sterner treatment of the 
lapsed naturally found favonr with the more en- 
thusiastic party, who usually give the tone to 
any religious society. Thus Eleutherus, bishop 
of Rome, in latter part of 2nd century was in- 
clined to take the Puritan view (Euseb. H. E. 
Jib. v. cap. 3). Ozanam, in his History of deni- 
zation in oth Cent. t. ii. p. 214, Eng. trans., has 
noted an interesting proof of the prevalence at 
that timo of this view in Home. Archaeologists 
have often been puzzled by the symbol of a Good 

Shepherd, carrying a. kid, not a lamb, on his 
shoulders, found in the cemetery of St. Callistus. 
Ozanam explains it as a reference by the ex- 
cavators of the cemetery to the prevalent Moo- 
tanist doctrine, which denied the possibility of a 
goat being brought back in this life. Novatian- 
ism thus fell upon ground prepared for it, and 
found in every quarter a body of adherents with 
whose views it coincided. At the same time it 
must be observed that Novatian was the first 
who made the treatment of the lapsed the ex- 
press ground of schism. In fact many continued 
to hold the same view within the church during 
the next one hundred and fifty years (cf. Hef. 
Councils, t. i. p. 134, Clark's ed.; Innocent I. Ep. 
iii. ad Ejcuperium, in Mansi, iii. 1039). This fact 
accounts for the rapid spread of the sect. la 
Africa they established themselves in many 
cities within the course of the two years subse- 
quent to Novatian's consecration in the spring 
of a.d. 251 (Cyprian, Vol. I. p. 746 of this 
Diet.). In Southern Gaul Marcian, bishop of 
Aries, joined them (Cypr. Ep. lxviii. ; Greg- 
Turon. Hist. Francor. lib. i. in Migne, Pat. 
Eat. lxxi. 175). In the East they made great 
progress, as we conclude from the state of affairs 
presented to us by Socrates. Between A.D. 260> 
and the council of Nice we hear scarcely any- 
thing about them. The controversies about 
Sabellianism and Paul of Samosata, together 
with the rising tide of Arianism, occupied the 
church during the concluding years of the 3rd. 
centnry, while the peace which it enjoyed pre- 
vented the question of the lapsed becoming a 
practical one. We may, however, trace the- 
influence of this period on Novatian doctrine. 
It became harder and sterner. Obliged to vindi- 
cate their position, they drew the reins lighter 
than Novatian had done. With him idolatry 
was the one crying sin which excluded from 
communion. During the long peace there was. 
no temptation to this sin, therefore his followers- 
were obliged to add all other deadly sins to the- 
list (Soc. H. E. vii. 25 ; Ambr. de Poenit. lib. i. 
capp. 2, 3 ; Ceill. v. 466, 467). At the council 
of Nice we find them established far and wide,, 
with a regular succession of bishops at the 
principal cities of the empire and in the highest 
reputation for piety. The monk Eutychian, one »f 
their number, was a celebrated miracle-worker, 
reverenced by Constantino himself, who also en- 
deavoured at the same time to lead one of their 
bishops, Acesius, to unite with the Catholics 
(Soc. H. E. i. 10, 13) [Acesius]. Durinir the 4th 
century we can trace their history much more 
clearly in the East than in the West, as Socrates 
gives such copious details about them, as have 
led some (Nicephorus, Baronius, and P. Labbacus). 
to suspect that he was a member of the sect. 
In the East their fortunes were very varying. 
Under Constantino they were tolerated and even, 
favoured {Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel, lib. xvi. tit. t. 
p. 1522). Under Constantius they were violently 
persecuted, together with the rest of the 
Homoousian party, by the patriarch Mace- 
donia. Socrates (ii. 38) mentions several 
martyrs for the Catholic faith whom they then 
furnished,speciallyoneAlexanderaPaphlagonian r 
to whose memory they built a church at Con- 
stantinople existing in his own day. Several of 
their churches, too, were destroyed at Constan- 
tinople and Cy zicus, but were restored by Julian 

Digitized by 



ipon his accession, and Agelius their bishop was 
banished. " But Macedonins consummated his 
wickedness in the following manner. Hearing 
there was a great number of the Novation sect 
in the province of Paphlagonia, and especially at 
Hantiniom, and, perceiving that such a nume- 
rous body could not be driven from their homes 
by ecclesiastics alone, he caused, by the emperor's 
permission, four companies of soldiers to be sent 
into Paphlagonia that, through dread of the 
military, they might receive the Arian opinion. 
But those who inhabited Mantinium, animated 
to desperation by zeal for their religion, armed 
themselves with long reaping-hooks, hatchets, 
aod whatever weapons came to hand, and went 
forth to meet the troops, on which, a conflict en- 
suing, many indeed of the Paphlagonians were 
slain, but nearly all the soldiers were destroyed." 
This persecution well-nigh brought about a 
union between the Catholics and the Novatians, 
as the former frequented the churches of the 
latter party during the Arian supremacy. The 
Novatians again, however, as in Constantine's 
time, were obstinate in refusing to unite with 
those whose church-theory was different from 
their own, though their faith was alike. Under 
Valens, seven years later, a.d. 366, they suffered 
another persecution, and Agelius was again 
exiled. Under Theodosius, bishop at Constan- 
tinople, Agelius appeared in conjunction with 
the orthodox patriarch Nectarius as joint- 
defenders of the Homoousian doctrine at the 
synod of A.D. 383, on which account the emperor 
conferred on their churches equal privileges with 
those of the establishment (Soc H. E. v. 10, 
20). John Chrysostom's severe zeal for church 
discipline led him to persecute them. When 
visiting Ephesus to consecrate a bishop, A.D. 401, 
he deprived them of their churches, an act to 
which many attributed John's subsequent mis- 
fortunes. An expression uttered by Chrysostom 
in reference to their peculiar views about sin 
after baptism, " Approach (the altar) though you 
may have repented a thousand tiroes," led to a 
literary controversy between him and the learned 
and witty Sisinnius, Novatian bishop of Con- 
stantinople (Soc. H, E. vi. 21, 22). Two or 
three other points of interest may be noted in 
their history during the 4th century. About 
the year 374 there occurred a schism in their 
ranks concerning the true time of Easter. 
Hitherto the Novatians had strictly observed the 
Catholic rule. A few obscure Phrygian bishops 
however convened a synod at Pazum or Pazn- 
coma, where they agreed to celebrate the same 
day as that on which the Jews keep the Feast 
of Unleavened Bread. This canon was passed 
in the absence of Agelius of Constantinople, 
Maximus of Nice, and the bishops of Nicomedia 
and Cotyaenm, their leading men (Soc. H. E. iv. 
28). Jewish influence was also at work, as Sozo- 
men (vii. 18) tells us that a number of priests were 
converted by the Novatians at Pazum during the 
reign of Valens, who still retained their Jewish 
ideas about Easter. To this sect was given the 
name Protopaschitae (Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel, 
p. 1581), where severe penalties are denounced 
against them as worshippers of a different Christ 
because observing Easter otherwise than the 
orthodox. This question, when raised by a 
presbyter of Jewish birth, named Sabbatius, 
some twenty years later, caused a further schism 



among the Novatians, at Constantinople, under 
the episcopate of Marcian, a.d. 391, whence the 
name Sabbatiani (2aj3/3aTuu>of). This division of 
the Novatians finally coalesced with the Montan- 
ists, though we can trace its distinct existence 
till the middle of the 5th centurv [Sabbatius]. 
(Soc. H. E. v. 21 ; Soz. H. E. vii. 18 ; Cod. Theod. 
ed. Haenel, pp. 1566, 1570, 1581). The curious 
student will find many particulars about the 
various customs of the Eastern Novatians and 
concerning the reflex influence of the sect on the 
church in the matter of auricular confession in 
Soc. //. E. v. 19, 22. The historian in cap. 19 
ascribes the original establishment of the office 
of penitentiary presbyter and secret confession 
to the Novatian schism. To prevent scrupulous 
persons knowing who had lapsed, the bishops 
appointed a presbyter to receive privately the 
confession of penitents. This office continued in 
Constantinople till the time of the patriarch 
Nectarius, A.D. 391, when it was abolished owing 
to a grave scandal which arose therefrom. 
Thenceforward it was determined "to leave 
every one to his own conscience with regard 
to participation in the sacred mysteries." 
The succession of Novatian patriarchs of Con- 
stantinople during the 4th century was Acesius, 
Agelius Marcianus, Sisinnius (Soc. //. E. 
v. 21; vi. 22; Soz. H. E. vii. 14). During 
the 5th century the Novatians continued to 
flourish notwithstanding occasional troubles. 
In Constantinople their bishops during the first 
half of the century were Sisinnius, died in 
a.d. 412, Chrysanthus in 419, Paul in 438 
and Marcian. They lived on amicable terms 
with the orthodox patriarch Atticus, who, re- 
membering their fidelity under the Arian perse- 
cution, protected them from their enemies. Paul 
even enjoyed the reputation of a miracle- 
worker, and died in the odour of universal 
sanctity, all sects and parties uniting in singing 
psalms at his funeral (Soc. H. E. vii. 46). In 
Alexandria, however, they were persecuted by 
Cyril, their bishop Theopemptus and their 
churches plundered, notwithstanding which they 
continued to exist in large numbers in that city 
till the 7th century, when Eulogius, Catholic 
patriarch of Alexandria, wrote a treatise against 
them (Phot. Cod. 182, 208; Ceill. xi. 589> 
Even in Scythia their churches existed, as we find 
Marcus, a bishop from that country, present 
at the death of Paul, Novatian bishop of Con- 
stantinople in July 21, 438. In Asia Minor, 
again, we find them as widely dispersed as the 
Catholics. In parts of it, indeed, the orthodox 
party seem for long to have been completely 
absorbed by those who took the Puritan view. 
Epiphanius tells ns, for instance, there were no 
Catholics for 112 years in the citv of Thyatira 
(ffaer. li. ; Lumper, Hist. SS. PP. viii. 259). 
They had established a regular parochial 
system. Thus (in Boeckh, Corp. Or. Inscriptt. 
iv. 9268) we find at Laodicea in Lycaonia 
an inscription on a tombstone erected by one 
Aurelia Domna to her husband Paul, deacon of 
the holy church of the Novatians (Nat/drew),* 

» The learned Editor of Boeckh, not recognising the 
name of the sect, speculates nboat some unknown 
town of Nauo to which the holy deacon might be 
assigned. Amid the corruptions of the Greek language 
Navaroc was a frequent form assumed by the larger 
Navaruwoc. See references at beginning of article. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



while even towards the end of the preceding 
century St. Basil, though hesitating on grounds 
similar to those of Cyprian, to recognize their 
baptism, concludes in its favour on the express 
ground that it was for the advantage and profit 
of the populace that it should be received (Basil, 
Ep. clxxxviii. ad Amphiloch. ; cf. E. T. Smith's 
Basil the Great, p. 119). After the close of the 
5th century we find but few notices of their his- 
tory. As the times of persecution receded into the 
distance of antiquity, their protest about the 
lapsed seemed obsolete and their adherents fell 
away, on the one side to the church, on the other 
to sects like the Montanists. The last formal 
notice of their existence in the East within our 
period will be found in the ninety-fifth canon 
of the Trullan (Quinisext) council a.d. 692. In 
the West we have no such particular details 
of the history of the Novatian schism as in the 
East. Yet we can perceive clear evidence of 
their widespread and long-continued influence. 
Already we have noted their extension into 
Southern Gaul and Africa in the very earliest 
days of its history. In Alexandria also, whose 
church-life, however, belongs more to the East 
than the West, we have noted its last historical 
manifestation. Between the middle of the 3rd 
century, when it arose, and the close of the 5th, 
we find repeated notices of its existence and 
power. Constantino's decree {Cod. Theod. XVI. v. 2, 
with (iothofred's comment), for instance, giving 
them a certain restricted liberty, was directed 
to Bassus, probably vicarius of Italy. Towards 
the close of the same 4th century we find a 
.regular succession of Novatian bishops existing 
— doubtless from Novatian 's time— at Rome, and 
held in such high repute for piety that the 
emperor Theodosius granted his life to the cele- 
brated orator Symtnachus on the prayer of the 
Novatian pope Leontius, A.D. 388. In the begin- 
ning of the 5th century, however, pope Celes- 
tine persecuted them, deprived them of their 
churches, and compelled Rusticula their bishop 
to hold his meetings in private, an act which 
Socrates considers as another proof of the over- 
weening and unchristian insolence of the Roman 
see (If. E. vii. 11). In the Code we find about the 
same time several severe edicts directed against 
the Novatians (Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel, lib. xvi. 
tit. v. legg. 59, 65, cf. vi. 6). In the south of Gaul 
and north of Italy and Spain the Novatian sect 
seems to have taken as firm root as in Phrygia 
and central Asia Minor. Whether the original 
religious teaching of the people whose Chris- 
tianity may have been imported from Africa 
but a short time before by Harcellinus 
[Marcellinus, (2)], or the physical features — 
the mountainous character, for instance, of 
these countries — may not have inclined them 
towards its stern discipline is a fair question. 
The fact, however, is proved by the treatises 
which Pocian of Barcelona and Ambrose of 
Milan felt necessary to direct against them. 
They are couched in language which proves the 
sect to have been then an aggressive one and a 
real danger to the church by the assertion of its 
superior sanctity and purity. The work of the 
Milanese bishop was evidently in answer to some 
work lately produced by them (De Poenit. lib. 
ii. cap. x.). The Separatist tendency begotten 
of Novatianism in this district and continued 
through Priscillianism, Adoptioniam, and Chtu- 


dius of Turin (Neander, H. E. t. vi. 119-130, 
ed. Bonn; cf. specially note on p. 119) may be 
a point of contact between the Novatians of 
primitive times and the Waldenses and Albi- 
genses of the Middle Ages. Their wide spread 
in Africa in Augustine's time is attested by 
Augustine, cont. Oaudent. in Opp. ed. Bened. 
Paris, ix. 642, 794. 

The principal controversial works directed 
against the sect which remain to us, beside 
those of Cyprian noted under his name, are the 
epistles of St. Pacian of Barcelona, the de 
Poenitentia of St. Ambrose, and the Quaatuma 
in Abe. Testam. num. cii. wrongly attributed to 
St. Augustine and found in the Parisian Ben. 
edit. t. iii. pars ii. 2942-2958, assigned by the 
editor to Hilary the deacon who lived under pope 
Damasus. The work of Pacian contains many 
interesting historical notices of the sect. From 
it we find they refused to the Catholics the name 
of a church, calling them Apostaticum, Capito- 
linum, or Sytudrium, and, on the other hand, 
rejected the name Novatians and styled them- 
selves simply Christians (ICp. ii. sec 3). The 
following were some of the texts relied on by 
the Novatians, and to the consideration of which 
the writers on the Catholic side applied them- 
selves (1 Sam. ii. 25; Matt. x. 33; xii. 31 ; xiii. 
47-49 •, 1 Cor. vi. 18 ; 2 Tim. ii. 20 ; Heb. vi. 4-7 ; 
1 John v. 15). Novatianism in the tests which 
it used, its efforts after a perfectly pure commu- 
nion, its crotchetty interpretations of Scripture, 
and many other features, presents a striking 
parallel to many modern sects. In addition to 
the original authorities already quoted, there 
may be consulted Ceillier, ii. 427, et passim; 
Waleh, Kctzerhist. ii. 185; Natal. Alex. ed. 
Mansi, saec. iii. cap. iii. art. iv. ; Till. Mem.; 
Bingham, Opp. t. vi. 248, 570; viii. 233, ed. 
Lend. 1840; Gieseler, H. E. i. 284, ed. Clark; 
Neander, H. E. ed. Bohn, i. 330-345. 

[G. T. S.] 

NOVATIANU8 (Novatianos, Cyprian, 
Ep. xliv. ; Hoouiros, Euscb. H. E. vi. 43 ; 
NovdVor, Soc. H. E. iv. 28. Lardner has ap- 
pended a lengthened note to the 47th chapter 
of his Credibility to prove that Eusebius and the 
Greeks in general were correct in calling the 
Roman presbyter Novatus, not Novatianus. He 
attributes the origin of the latter name to 
Cyprian, who called the Roman presbyter No- 
vatianus, as being a follower of his own rebel- 
lious priest, Novatus of Carthage). Novatian, 
the founder of Novatianism, is said by Philo- 
storgius to have been a Phrygian by birth, a 
notion which may have originated in the 
popularity of his system in Phrygia and its 
neighbourhood (Lightfoot's Colossians, p. 98). 
He was, before his conversion, a philosopher, but 
we cannot certainly determine the sect to which 
he belonged, though from a comparison of the 
language of Cyprian in Epiet. Iv. sec 13, ad 
Antonian., with the Novatian system itself, we 
should be inclined to fix upon the Stoic The 
circumstances of his conversion and baptism arc 
stated by Pope Cornelius in his letter to Kabios 
of Antioch (Eusebius, I. c), but we must accept 
bis statements with much caution. He was a 
very tetchy man, and his narration was evidently 
coloured by his feelings. The facts of the case 
appear to be thus. He was converted after he 

Digitized by 



had come to manhood, and received clinical bap- 
tism, bat was never confirmed, which famishes 
Cornelius with one of his principal accusations. 
Notwithstanding this defect he was admitted to 
the clerical order, and, according to a tradition 
preserved in the treatise of Kulogius of Alex- 
andria against his followers, he was for a 
time archdeacon of Rome, and was ordained 
presbyter to deprive him of that position and 
its customary claim to succeed to the see when 
vacant (cf. Neander, II. E. v. 158). This tra- 
dition, however, is contradicted by the state- 
ment of Cornelius, who, though an enemy, 
admits that his predecessor Fabianus had 
considered him so worthy of the office of 
presbyter as to have ordained him thereto in 
opposition to the whole body of the clergy who 
were opposed to the ordination of clinics. Nova- 
tion's talents, especially bis eloquence, to which 
even Cyprian witnesses {Ep. lx. 3), rapidly 
brought him to the front, and he became the 
most influential presbyter of the Roman church. 
in this character, the see being vacant, he 
wrote Ep. xxx., to the Carthaginian church, 
touching the treatment of the lapsed, while 
the anonymous author of the treatise against 
Novatian, written A.D. 255, and included by 
Erasmus among Cyprian's works, describes him 
while remaining in the church as "having 
been a precious vessel, an house of the Lord, 
who, as long as he was in the church, be- 
wailed the faults of other men as bis own, 
bore the burdens of his brethren as the apostle 
directs, and by his exhortations strengthened 
such as were weak in the faith.'' This testimony 
sufficiently disposes of the accusation of Cor- 
nelius that Novatianus denied the faith in time 
of persecution, declaring himself " an admirer of 
a different philosophy." In the earlier part of 
A.D. 250 he approved of a moderate policy 
towards the lapsed, bat towards the close of the 
year he changed his mind, and seems to have 
taken op such extreme views that the martyr 
Moses, who probably suffered on the last day of 
250, condemned his course (see Art. on Cyprian, 
Vol. I. p. 743 of this Dictionary). The chronology 
of this period, which presents many difficulties, 
will be found amply discussed there and in 
Lipsius {Chronol. d. Bom. Bisch. pp. 200-210). 
Id March, 251, Cornelius was consecrated bishop 
(Lipsius, /. c. p. 205). This roused the stricter 
party to action (Cyprian, Ep. xlvi.). Novatus, 
the Carthaginian agitator, having meanwhile 
arrived at Rome, flung himself into their ranks, 
urging them to take the final step of setting up 
an opposition bishop. For this purpose be made 
a journey into distant parts of Italy, whence he 
brought back three bishops who consecrated 
Novatian [Novatos]. Their names may possibly 
have been Marcellus, Alexander of Aquileia, and 
Agamemnon of Tibur (cf. Eulogii Cord. Nova- 
tianos, in Phot. Cod. 182, 208; Euseb. //. E. vi. 
43 ; Theodoret, Haeret. Fab. iii. 5). On the other 
hand Bingham suggests Opp. Lond. 1840, t. viii. 
p. 235, that Trophimus was the name of the lead- 
ing consecrotor, quoting Cyprian {Ep. lv. sec 8). 
After his consecration he despatched the usual 
epistles announcing it to the bishops of the chief 
sees, to Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Fabias 
of Antioch. Cyprian rejected his communion at 
once. Dionysius wrote . exhorting him to retire 
from his schismatical position (Euseb. H. E. vi. 



46). Fabius, however, so inclined to his side that 
Dionysius addressed to him a letter on the sub- 
ject ; and two bishops, Firmilianus of Cappadocia 
and Theoctistus of Palestine, wrote to Dionysius 
requesting his presence at the council of Antioch 
to restrain tendencies in that direction (Euseb. 
vi. 44, 46). In the latter part of the same year 
Novatian was formally excommunicated by a 
synod of sixty bishops at Rome. He then threw 
himself into the work of organising a distinct 
church, rebaptizing all who came over to his 
side (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiii. 2), and despatching 
letters and emissaries to the most distant parts 
of the East and West (Soc. H. E. iv. 28). His 
subsequent career is buried in darkness, save that 
Socrates informs us that he suffered martyrdom 
under Valerian (Socrates, H. E. iv. 28 ; cf. the 
apocryphal Acts of Novatian included in the 
treatise of Eulogius noticed above). Novatian 
was a copious writer, as we learn from Jerome 
{de Vir. Must. c. lxx.), where we have the 
following list of his works: "De Poscha, de 
Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de Sacerdote, de Ora- 
tione, de Instantia, de Attalo, de Cibis Jndaicis, 
et de Trinitate," only the two lost of which are 
now extant. That on Jewish meats was written 
at some place of retreat from persecution. The 
Jewish controversy seems to have been very hot 
just then at Rome, and Novatian wrote his 
treatise to refute their contention about dis- 
tinction of meats, lie points out that the old 
law prohibited certain meats to restrain Jewish 
intemperance, and to reprove in man certain 
vices mystically depicted in animals (cf. cap. iii. 
with Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 18). He shews, 
however, that all such shadows have been done 
away in Christ, and that Christians have now 
liberty to eat everything save what is offered to 
idols. Jerome describes his work on the Trinity 
as an epitome of Tertullian's, and as attributed 
by some to Cyprian (Hieron. Apol. coat. Rufin. 
lib. ii. Opp. t. iv. p. 415). It proves Novatian 
to have been a diligent student, as its arguments 
are identical with those of Justin Martyr in his 
Dialog, cum Tryph. cap. exxvii. ; Tertnll. adv. 
Prax. cap. xiv.-xxv. ; Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 16 ; 
v. 11, 12. He deals first with the absolute per- 
fection of the Father, His invisibility, &c, then 
discusses the anthropomorphic expressions of the 
Scriptures, laying down that " such things were 
said about God indeed, bet they are not to be 
imputed to God but to the people, it is not 
God who is limited, bat the perception of the 
people." In cap. vii. he declares that even the 
terms Spirit, Light, Love, are only in an imper- 
fect degree applicable to God. In cap. ix.-xxviii. 
he discusses the true doctrine of the Incarna- 
tion, explaining, like Clement and others, the 
theophanies of the Old Testament as manifesta- 
tions of Christ, and refuting the doctrine of the 
Sabellians, or Artemonites, according to Neander 
(//. E. ii. 298), which had just then developed 
itself. He ends the discussion by explaining the 
doctrine of the Holy Spirit, wherein he is 
thought by some to have fallen into error. He 
was quoted indeed by the Macedonians of the next 
century as supporting their view (cf. Fabric. Bib. 
Graec. xii. 565 and references noted there ; 
Bull's D-.f. of Mcene Creed, ii. 476, Oxon. 1852 ; 
Jvdg. of Cath. Ck pp. 9, 137, 291, Oxon. 1855). 
Larduer (Credib. cap. 47, t. iii. p. 242) 
shews that Novatian did -not . accept - the 

Digitized by 




Epistle to the Hebrews as Scripture, since he 
neverquotes any texts out of it, though there were 
several which favoured his cause, notably Heb. 
vi. 4-8. His followers, however, in the next 
century, did use them. Some hare even thought 
that Novatian was the author of the Refutation 
of all Heresies (Bunsen, Christ, and Mankind, i. 
480). The works of Novatian were published by 
Welchmann, Oxon, 1724 ; by Jackson, London, 
1728, and in Galland. Bib. PP. t. iii. They 
have been also translated in the volume of 
Clark's Ante-Nicene Lib. containing the second 
part of St. Cyprian's writings, Edinburgh, 1869. 
Jackson's edition is the best. It was severely 
criticised by S. Crellius in a work styled 
Artemonii defensio emendat. in Novatiano factor, 
cont. J. Jackson, Lond. 1729. [Fortpnatot ; 
Maximus; Moses; Evakistus ; Dionysius; 
Fabius ; Nicostratus (1).] (Forbesii Instruct. 
Histor. Theolog. p. 666 : Lumper, Hist. SS. PP. 
viii. 259 ; Natal. Alex. ed. Mansi, saec. iii. cap. i. 
art. iv. ; Welch's JTetzerhist. ii. 185 ; Neander, 
H. E. ed. Bohn, pp. 330-335 ; Ceillier, ii. 426 ; 
Gieseler, H. E. i. 284, ed. Clark.) [G. T. S.] 

NOVATUS (1), presbyter of Carthage. He 
seems to have been an original opponent of 
Cyprian's election, bnt is first mentioned by him 
in Ep. xiv. sec. 5, with three other presbyters — 
Donatus, Fortunatus, and Gordius — as having 
written about some question to Cyprian then in 
retirement. This was, doubtless, touching the 
request of the confessors, to have peace granted 
to certain of the lapsed which, in Ep. 50, 
Cyprian refuses until he had taken counsel with 
the presbyters and faithful laity. Cyprian, in 
this latter epistle, reproves certain presbyters, 
evidently Novatus and his companions, who, 
"considering neither the fear of God nor the 
honour of the bishop," had already granted 
peace to the lapsed. In Ep. xliii., writing to 
the church of Carthage, he compares Novatus 
and his associates to the five chief commis- 
sioners entrusted with the conduct of the per- 
secution, and, as it seems, intimates that they 
threatened to raise a riot upon his appearance 
from his place of retirement. In Ep. Iii. 3 
Cyprian, writing to Cornelius, gives a very bad 
character of Novatus. He describes him as one 
"ever eager for innovation, of insatiable 
avarice, puffed up with pride, always known for 
evil to the bishops here, a heretic, and per- 
fidious," again, as "having robbed orphans, 
defrauded the church, permitted his father to 
die of hunger, having kicked his wife when 
pregnant, and having thus become the murderer 
of his own child." The critic will be apt to 
think that Cyprian's feelings must have here 
coloured his judgment, as such a bishop as he 
was could scarcely have tolerated such a bad 
man in the presbyteratc. He, in the same 
epistle, describes him as having made his 
follower Felicissimns a deacon, and then "at 
Rome committing greater and more grievous 
crimes. He who at Carthage made a deacon 
against the church, there made a bishop." The 
Liberian catalogue in like manner describes 
Novatus as ordaining Novatian in Rome and Nico- 
stratus in Africa, though Cornelius (Euseb. 
H. E. vi. 43) tells us Novatian was ordained by 
three bishops from distant parts of Italy. 
Neander (if. IS. L 313, ed. Bohn), concluding on 


the contrary, from Cyprian's words, that 
Novatus, " spurning the yoke of episcopal 
monarchy," himself ordained Felicissimus. 
Cyprian evidently merely means that Novatus 
brought about the ordination of both the deacon 
and bishop. At the same time, Ep. xliii. sec. 2, 
proves that Cyprian's wrath was specially stirred 
by some anti-episcopal innovations of Novatus 
and his party. What their character was it 
wonld be now impossible to determine (cf. Bing- 
ham, Dissert, on 8th Nicene canon in Opp. London, 
1840, t. viii. p. 417). After the consecration of 
Novatian, Novatus was sent by him, together 
with Evaristus, Nicostratus, Primus and Dio- 
nysius to organize his party in Africa (Cyprian, 
Ep. 1.). After this he disappears from our sight. 
(Compare Dr. Posey's note upon him, appended 
to Cyprian, Ep. Iii. in Oxford, Lib. of Fathers. 
See also Milman, Lat. Christ, t. i. pp. 60-62, 
ed. Lond. 1867. On the latter page he remarks 
in a note, " We are on historical ground, or what 
a myth might be made out of these two innova- 
tors — Novatus and Novatian.") [NovATlAXua; 
CrpMAs.] " [G. T. SJ 

NOVATUS (2), bp. of Thnmogade (Hartel — 
as also some Inscriptions ; Thamugade, more com- 
mon (hod. Timgftd), near Lambaesis in Numidia, 
afterwards a headquarters of Donatism (vid. 
Morcelli) Sentt. Episcopor. 4 in Syn. Carth. sub 
Cyp. de Bap. 3). His expressions as one of the 
oldest of the eighty-seven bishops seem to affect 
our estimate of the date of the Agrippincnsian 
council. He could scarcely have called its 
members " sanctissimae memoriae " had not the- 
generation passed, nor " collegae " if they had 
been beyond his memory. [E. W. B.J 

NOVATUS (8), called Catuoliccs, a monk 
probably of the 4th century, author of a short 
Latin piece, Sententia de Humilitate et Obediential 
et de Calcanda Sapcrbia. (Patr. Lat. xviii. 67 ; 
Ceillier, vi. 331.) [C. H.J 

NOVATUS of Sitifa. [Navatcs.] 

NOVELLUS, bishop of Tyzica, a small 
town of Proconsular Africa, Thisica of Ptolemy, 
between Tabraca and the river Bagradas (Ptol. 
iv. 3-31). The see appears to have lasted as- 
late as A.D. 449, for a bishop of Tizzica was 
present at the Lateran council held in that 
year (Booking, Not. Dign. i. p. 642). Novellus is 
mentioned by Augustine as being, together with 
Faustinas of Tuburbo, open to a charge from 
the Donatist point of view, of the same kind 
as Caecilianus, yet not condemned by his party 
on that account, probably because both he and 
Faustinus adopted Donatist views. Augustine 
does not mention the charge, but it was no doubt 
one of having received consecration from a 
"traditor." (Aug. ad Don. post Coll. xxii. 38; 
Morcelli, Afr. Chr. i. 342.) Kaustinus (4).] 

[H. W. P.} 

NOVELLUS, bishop of Complutum, is 
mentioned in A.D. 579 by J. Biclarensis (CAroi*. 
in Migne, Patr. Lat. lxxii. 866) as an illustrious 
person. Nothing more is known of him. At 
the third council of Toledo in a.d. 589 the see 
was vacant (Esp. Sag. vii. 179). [F. D.} 

NUADHA (Nuad, -datus, -dot, Nuat, 
Nodtat), abbat, classed in recent times among 

Digitized by 



the bishops and archbishops, of Armagh, has a 
memoir by Colgan (Acta S3. 373), Dt S. Nuadato 
archiepiscopo Ardmachano; is noticed by O'Hanlon 
(/r. £& ii. 637-8). He was probably an anchoret 
at Lochuamha in Lower Breffhy, and succeeded 
Torbach in the primacy at Armagh A.D. 812 (four 
Mast, by O'Don. i. 419; Cotton, Fast. iii. 7). 
The Irish Annals record that in A.D. 815 (Ann. 
Ult. and Four Moat. a.d. 810) he went to Con- 
naught, for the rectification apparently of some 
abuses. He died A.D. 816. His feast is Feb. 19. 

[J. G.] 
NUB. [Akcph, Paesis, Poemen.] 

NUDD (1) ap Ceidio, Welsh saint of the 6th 
century, member of St. llltyd's college (Rees, W. 
S3. 208 : Williams, lolo MSS. 503, 530). 

[J. G.] 

NUDD (2), bishop of Llandaff early in the 
9th century (Lib. Land, by Rees, 626), perhaps 
Xudd the " reader," and clerical witness of many 
charters, but probably Novis or Nywys, who 
died A.D. 873 (».). * [J. G.] 

NUDD (3) (Hael), classed sometimes among 
the Welsh saints, one of the men of the North in 
the beginning of the 6th century, a member of St. 
llltyd's college, and perhaps founder of Llysvron- 
aud'd ( Triads in Myv. Arch. ii. 3, 14, 70 ; Skene, 
Tour Ane. B. Wal. ii. 457 ; Williams, lolo MSS. 
542 et ml.). [J. G.] 

NUMENIUS (1), philosopher; vid. Diet. 
G. t B. Biog. 

NUMENIUS (2), a disciple of Lucian the 
martyr. He was one of a brilliant band who 
imbibed from him Arion principles. Among 
them was Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of 
Oialcedon, and Leoutius of Antioch. They were 
Uke the rest of the Arian party rather weak 
ia Christian principle. "They yielded to the 
violence of tyrants so far as to offer sacrifice 
to the gods of the heathen; but afterwards 
made amends for their lapse, Lucian their 
master himself assisting to bring them to 
repentance." (Philostorgii E. H. ii. 14 ; Tillem. 
t. 770). [G. T. S.] 

NUMENIUS (3), a primate addressed by the 
famous ascetic Nilus on the benefit of studying 
Holy Scripture, Ep. lib. ii. 198, where Kilus 
shews that he favoured the mystical mode of 
interpreting Holy Scripture. [Nilus (3).] 

[G. T. S.] 

NUMERIA (Cyp. Ep. 31, 32), sister of 
Celertncs, unless her real name was Etecusa, 
q. r. [E. W. B.] 

NUMERIANUS (1), emperor, A.D. 284. 
31. Aurelius Numerianus, the younger son of the 
emperor Carus, was associated with his father 
in the war against the Sarmatians and Persians, 
which was the one conspicuous event in his short 
reign. He and his brother Carinus received the 
title of Caesar, and while the latter was left at 
Rome outraging the feelings of the senate and of 
all the decent citizens by a licentiousness like that 
of Qagabalus and a cruelty like that of Domi- 
tian, and attracting the admiration of the popu- 
lace by spectacles of unprecedented magnificencr, 
the former accompanied his father in his Eastern 
expedition. On the death of Carus, as it was 
reported, struck by lightning, the two brothers 



were acknowledged as emperors both by the 
army and the senate. The superstition of the 
troops saw however, in the manner of the em- 
peror's death, an indication of the wrath of the 
gods at the attempted extension of the empire 
beyond the Tigris, and clamorously called on 
Nnmerian to lead them home. The young em- 
peror, amiable, cultivated, with the tastes of a 
poet and an orator, had not strength to resist 
them, and they began their march. During 
their eight months' march to Heraclea on the 
European side of the Propontis, he was scarcely 
seen, and was carried in a litter, suffering from 
an inflammation of the eyes, brought on by ex- 
posure to the sun, or by his ceaseless weeping 
for his father's death. All business was trans- 
acted in his name by his father-in-law, Annius 
Aper, who held the office of praetorian prefect. 
Before long a report spread that the emperor 
was dead. The soldiers rushed into the imperial 
tent and found his corpse. Suspicion fell on 
Aper, who was arrested and taken in chains to 
Chalcedon. The generals and tribunes of the 
army held a council, in which Diocletian was 
elected emperor. Addressing the legions, he ap- 
pealed to the " all-seeing Sun " as witness that 
he was guiltless of the death of Numerianus, and 
ordering Aper to be brought before his tribunal, 
pointed him out as the murderer, and, without 
waiting for his defence against the charge, 
plunged his sword into his breast. Carinus, still 
at Rome, prepared for resistance, and the two 
armies met in Moesia, near the banks of the 
Danube. The conflict, fought at Margus, was 
for a time doubtful as to its issue, but the mur- 
der of Carinus on the field of battle, by a tribune 
whose wife he had seduced, left the victory with 
Diocletian (Vopisc. Numer. ; Aurel. Vict. Epit. 
38 ; De Caes. 38 ; Eutrop. ix. 12 ; Zonar. xii. 30; 
Gibbon, c xii.). [E. H. P.] 

NUMERIANUS (2), praeses of Cilicia, in 
the early part of the Diocletian persecution. 
His full name, according to the Greek version of 
the Acts of Tarachus, was Flavins Gaius Numeria- 
nus Maximus (Ruinart, Acta Sine. p. 422). The 
action of this official has given M. Ed. le Blant 
some of his best instances, shewing the use we 
can make of the acts of the martyrs to illustrate 
Roman legal procedure. (Le Blant, Les Actus 
des Mart. pp. 27-29, cf. p. 121, Paris, 1882.) 

[G. T. S.] 

NUMERIANUS (3), bishop in the district 
of Constantinople, bearer of a letter from pope 
Zosimus (Ep. et Deer. No. 16) to the bishops 
throughout Byzacene A.D. 418 (Ceillier, Aut. 
Sacr. vii. 538). [J. G.] 

NUMERIANUS (4), ST. (Memomanus, 
Mctneeianus), July 5, bishop of Treves (Browe- 
rus, Aniiq. Trevirens. i. 355, ii. Chr. Index p. 8; 
Boll. Acta SS. 5 Jul. ii. 231 ; Qall. Chr. xiii. 
385), his period being c. 657-670 (Brow.) or 
c. 640-666 (G. C), while as to his exact posi- 
tion in the series, authorities are not agreed (cf. 
Mabillon, Annal. 0. B. t. i. pp. 487, 507, 604 
and art. Hildulfus). Browerus can find 
nothing of him except his monumental inscrip- 
tion recording his day in the church of St. 
Helen at Treves founded in the 11th century. 
But there are likewise charters mentioning him. 
One attributed to himself, c. 664 or 677, grant- 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



ing a privilegium to abbat Deodatus (Gall. Chr. 
ziii. lustrum, p. 291 ; Mabillon, Annal. 0. B. i. 
69ti ; Brequigny, Diplom. num. 360, ed. Pardes- 
sus) is spurious as shewn at length by Bre- 
quigny (t. i. Proleg. pp. 100, 298). A charter 
of Sigebert II. to abbat Remaclus, 648, mentions 
him in one recension (Breq. num. 313), and 
omits him in another (Acta j'S. 1 Feb i. 235 A). 
A charter of Childeric II., 667, mentions him 
(Breq. 359; Acta SS. 1 Feb. i. 235 k) as Me- 
morianns. [C. H.] 

NUMERIUS, a deacon of Nuceria, into 
whose fitness for the episcopal office (sacerdotium) 
the subieacon Peter was requested by pope 
Gregory the Great to examine, a.d. 593 (Greg, 
lib. iii. ind. xi. ep. 40 in Pat. Lot. lxxvii. ; Jam?, 
R. P. num. 880). [C. H.] 

NUMIDICUS, African confessor in Decian 
persecution, left for dead after stoning and burn- 
ing, but recovered by his daughter. His wife 
perished. He was a presbyter, and Cyprian 
enrols him in the Carthaginian Cleros as an 
honour, assigning him a seat in the circle, pro- 
mises his elevation (to episcopate), and, Ep. 41, 
associates him with his former commissary 
Rogatian and the bishops Galdoxius, Hkb- 
culanus, and Victor in the commission for 
relief of Carthaginian sufferers which led to the 
open schism of Felicissimus. In Ep. 43 he is 
one of the main stays while Cyprian is away. 

[E. W. B.] 

NUMIDIUS, bishop present as an African 
deputy at the council of Aquileia, A.u. 381. 
(Ambros. Opp. ii. 786, in Migne'a Pat. Lot. xvi. 
916, 934.) The acts of this council as there set 
forth have been challenged as spurious, bnt are 
accepted by the Benedictine editor and by Hefele, 
Counc. ii. 376, Clark's translation. [G. T. S.] 

He and his colleague Felix, who was no donbt 
the bishop of Selemsela [Felix (150)], spoke in 
favour of the Nicene faith. This bishop was 
no doubt Numidius I. of Maxula, who, together 
with Felix of Selemsela, was a prominent speaker 
at the council of Carthage in 390 (Hard. i. 951). 
He appears also at the conference of 411, where 
his Donntist opponent is one Felix (Collat. Carth. 
cognit. i. 112, in Hard. i. 1077). He may be 
assumed to have been the Numidius who stands 
first in the address to pope Innocent at the council 
of Carthage in 416 (Hard. i. 1215) against the 
Pelagians (Tillem. vi. 157, xiii. 304, 395, 690; 
Morcelli i. 220; Ceill. iv. 648). A second 
Numidius of Maxula was present at the council 
of Carthage in 525 (Hard. ii. 1082 ; Morcelli, 
i. 220). [C. H.J 

NUMULENU8 (Mummulenus), Gallicnoblc, 
father of Hobo and Bodegisilus, was called Sues- 
sionicus by Greg. Tur. (Hint. Franc, vi. c. 45, x. 
c. 45, ap. Pat. Lat. lxxi.), is highly praised by 
Fortunatus Venantius (Miscell. vii. c. 14, x. c. 
2), who addresses a poem and consolatory letter 
to him on the death of his daughter (Pat. Lat. 
lxxxviii. 251, 322, sq. ; Ceillier, Aut. Soar. xi. 
409). [J. G.] 

NUNCUPATUS, a presbyter who carried 
information to Charibert king of Paris of the 
deposition of Emerius bishop of Saintes and was 
banished (Greg. Tur. If. F. iv. 26). [U. H.] 


NUNDINARlUS(l), a deacon, who for some 
cause unknown was degraded by Silvanus bishop 
of Cirta. He endeavoured to obtain restoration 
through the influence of Purpurius bishop of 
Limata, Fortis, and Sabinus, who each of them 
wrote letters to Silvnnus and to the church of 
Cirta, exhorting reconciliation, but recommend- 
ing secrecy in the matter. The dangerous facts 
to be thus concealed were (1) the act of '• tradi- 
tion " on the part of Silvanus, (2) the bribery 
by means of which Victor obtained his ordina- 
tion, whose proceeds, 20 folles, he said were 
divided among themselves by the bishops, (3) 
the corrupt means used by Purpurius and Sil- 
vanus to obtain their bishoprics, and (4) the 
money given by Lucilla for obtaining the ap- 
pointment of Majorinus. Of the truth of all 
these charges Nundinarius gave evidence before 
Zenophilus, and was supported by other wit- 
nesses, a.d. 320. (Aug. Unit. Eocl. 18, 46 ; c 
Crete, iii. 28,32; 29,33; Ep. 53,3; Opt. i. 
14 ; Man. Yet. Don. iv. ed. Oberthur.) [Lucilla, 
Fobtis, Crescentianus, Satubkinus, Sil- 
vanus.] [H. W. P.] 

NUNDINARIUS (2), bishop of Barcelona, 
c. A.D. 465, by appointing Irenaeus his successor, 
caused an appeal to be made to pope Hilary and 
the enactment of five disciplinary canons 
[Ibenaeus (10)] (Hilarins, Epp. i. ii. ap. 
Pat. Lat. lviii. ; Hard. ii. 801 ; Florex, Esp. 
Sag. xxix. 114; Tillem. xvi. 45; Ceillier, Aut. 
Sacr. x. 339). [J. G.] 

NUNNA (NUN), a king of the South Saxons, 
who in concert with his kinsman Ine king of 
the West Saxons carried on a successful war in 
710 against Gerent (called Uuthgirete by Ethel- 
werd) king of the Britons (A. S. C. ann. 710 ; 
Flor. Wig. ann. 710 ; Ethelwerd, Chron. ii. 12 ; 
Hen. Hunt. lib. iv. ; L'Estorie des Angloit, ver. 
1629 ; for which passages see M. H. B. 326, 507, 
540 c. 724 a, 784). In the charters of Kemble's 
Cod. Dipt, he is found subscribing in 692 as king 
of the South Saxons a charter of Nothelm 
king of the South Saxons (num. 995) ; as king 
of the South Saxons he grants land to Beadufrid 
and his brethren dwelling in the island of 
Selsey, where Nunna desires to be buried (999) ; 
he grants land, in 725 to bishop Eadbert (1000); 
in an undated charter (1001) he grants to 
Berhfrid a servant of God lands in the plane 
called Piperingas, near the river Tarente 
[Osmund]. [C. H.] 

NUNNECHIUS. [Nohnichiot.] 

NUNNINUS (Numnius), a tribune of 
Auvergne in the time of queen Teudechildis, 
said to have been preternaturally punished for 
chipping the tomb of St. Germanus of Auxerre 
(Greg. Tur. Glor. Conf. cap. 41). [C. H.] 

NUNNIO, a courtier of Childebert I. king or 
Paris (Greg. Tur. Vit. Pat. cap. it 1). [Patro- 
CLUS.] [C. H. j 

NURSINUS, a priest said to have seen in 
the hour of his death the apostles Peter and Paul 
(Greg. Mag. Dial. iv. 11 ; Ceill. xi. 478). 


Digitized by 



NYCTAGES, heretics described by Isldorus 
Hi'spal., as opposing vigils on the ground that 
God made the day for work and the night for 
sleep. They took up merely the same ground 
as Vigilantins against Jerome and the subdeacon 
Timotheus against St. Nilus, cf. Nili Epist. i. 26. 
(Isidor. Hispal. de Ecclee. Offic. i. 22, in Mjgne's 
Pat. Lat. t. 83, col. 759.) [G. T.S.] 

NYMPHA, a Tirgin saint of about the fifth 
century, honoured in Tuscany and at Rome 
(Peter Natalia, lib. r, c 42, p. 197 ; Tilletn. iii. 
342, 343, 709> [C. H.] 

seholasticua of Philadelphia, who renounced 
Quartodecimanism at the council of Ephesus 
(Mansi, iv. 1355, v. 6X0, vi. 893). [C. H.] 

NYMPHODORA, martyr in Bithynia in 
the reign of Maiimian, with her sisters Meno- 
dora and Metrodora (vid. those names in D. C. A. 
and Tillem. v. 160). [C. H.] 

NYNIA, NYNYANE. [Nijoih.] 

OAN, princeps, that is, abbat, of Egg in the 
Hebrides, died a.d. 724. {Ann. Ult.; Reeves, 
S. Adamn. 307, 382.) [J. G.] 

OBINTJ8 (OtriNT/s), the fourth name in the 
mythical list of the British bishops or arch- 
bishops of London (Godwin, de Praesui'ibua, ed. 
Richardson, p. 170; Ussher, Antiq. ed. 1639, 
p. 67.) The compiler of the list in which the 
name occurs was Joscelin of Fumes, a monk 
of the 12th century, of whose life and materials 
nothing satisfactory seems to be ascertained ; 
and the MS. from which Ussher and the other 
writers excerpted it has not been recognised 
(Hardy, Cat. Mat. i. 64; Fabricius, BMioVi. 
Lat. ». v.y [S.] 

OCCILIANU8, addressed by Gregory the 
Great in a.d. 599, on his appointment as 
tribnne of Hydruntum or Otranto by the exarch, 
requesting him to redress the wrougs done by 
his predecessor Viator to the inhabitants of 
Gallipoli, by exacting forced services from them, 
and otherwise oppressing them, about which 
Sabinus, or Sabinianus, bishop of the place, had 
written to complain. From another letter it 
ar-pears that Occilianus had personally visited 
Gregory (Epp. ix. 99, 100, 102). [F. D.] 

OCEANUS, a Roman of noble birth in the 
4th and 5th centuries, connected by birth with 
Fabiola (q. v.) and the Julian family, and by 
friendship with Jerome, Augustine and Pam- 
machins. Jerome speaks of him as his son (Ep. 
lxxvii. 1, ed. Vail, and lxix. 10), but as the 
spiritual father of Marcellinus, the Roman 
governor (Ep. lxxvi. 1, a.d. 411). He was, 
perhaps, like his friend Pammai-hius, a senator 
(comp. their letter among Jerome's lxxxiii. with 
his expression, Ep. xcvii. 3, Vos Christiani Sena- 
tns lamina). He probably became known to 
Jerome during his stay in Rome in 383-5. He 



was a zealous upholder of orthodoxy and strict 
discipline, and first comes to our knowledge by 
a public protest which he made against Carterius, 
a Spanish bishop who, having married before 
his baptism and lost his wife, had, as a Christian, 
married a second wife. Jerome points out that 
there is no law or principle condemning such 
marriages, and urges him to silence. This was 
about the year 397. Either in that or the 
previous year, Oceanus, in company with Fabiola, 
visited Jerome at Bethlehem, whence they were 
driven by the fear of the invasion of the Huns. 
While there, he appears to have made acquain- 
tance with Rufinus, who, according to Jerome's 
insinuation (Adv. Rvf. iii. 4), had an Origenistic 
document placed in Oceanus's room in Fabiola's 
house, with a view to identify him with that 
tendency. Kufinus having gone to Rome the 
same year (397), and having published shortly 
afterwards his edition of the n*pl 'Apx&r, 
Oceanus and Pammachins watched his actions 
with critical eyes, and, on the appearance of the 
work, wrote to Jerome (Jer. Ep. 83) requesting 
him to deny the insinuation of Rufinus that he 
was only completing a work begun by Jerome, 
and to furnish them with a translation of 
Origen's work as it really was. Oceanus, no 
doubt, took part in the subsequent proceedings 
which led to the condemnation of Origenism at 
Rome. On the death of Fabiola, about 399, 
Jerome wrote to Oceanus his Epitaphium of her 
(Ep. 77), accompanied by his exposition, which 
had been intended for her, of the 42 resting- 
places of the Israelites in the desert. At a 
later time, in 411, Oceanus, who had maintained 
his correspondence with Jerome, and possessed 
his books against Rufinus and other of his 
works, interested himself specially in the ques- 
tions which arose in connexion with the Pelagian 
controversy, on the origin of souls. Jerome 
writes to Marcellinus and Anapsychius(£p. 126) 
who had consulted him on this subject, referring 
them to Oceanus as one thoroughly "learned 
in the law of the Lord " and capable of instruct- 
ing them. Oceanus was also in correspondence 
with Augustine, who writes to him in the year 
416 on the two subjects on which he had 
differed from Jerome, the origin of souls, and 
the passage in Galatians relating to the reproof 
of St. Peter by St. Paul at Antioch. Augustine 
speaks also of another work of Jerome's on the 
resurrection which had been brought by Orosius 
to Oceanus, and of letters which he had received 
from him. The tenor of his letter indicates his 
deep respect and consideration. Oceanus is 
placed by Migne with Pammachins, among the 
ecclesiastical writers (Patrologia, vol. 20) ; but 
no writing of his has come down to us except 
the letter to Jerome {Ep. 83). [W. H. F.] 

OCIATjDUS, disciple of St. Richarius, 
whom c. 645 he succeeded as abbat of Centula 
or St. Riquier in Picardy. (Alcuin, Vit. S. 
Richar. § 14, in Pat. Lat. ci. 691 ; Gall. Chr. x. 
1243.) ' [C. H.] 

OCLEATINUS, forbidden by Gregory the 
Great in A.D. 591, in letters to Severus, bishop 
of Ficulum, and to the governor and inhabitants 
of Ariminum (Epp. 1, 57, 58), on what grounds 
it is not stated, to be chosen bishop of that city. 


Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



OCTAVIANA, wife of Hesperius, used her 
hasband's influence with the usurper Maximus 
in favour of a Tertullianist teacher whom she 
liad brought with her from Africa to Rome. 
<Praedest. Haer. 86.) [G. S.] 

OCTAVIANUS, an archdeacon and martyr 
in the Arian persecution under Hunneric. (Greg. 
Turon. Hist. Franc, ii. 3.) [G. T. S.] 

OOTAVIUS (1). [Minucids Felix.] 

OCTAVIU8 (2), Nov. 20 (Usuard. Mart.), 
one of the martyrs of the Thebaean legion, com- 
memorated, together with his companions Ad- 
ventitius and Solutor, at Turin. They were the 
subject of a homily by St. Maximus, bishop of 
Turin. [Maximus (16).] (Horn. 81, De Natali 
SS. ifartyrum Oclav., Adcent., et Sotut. in Pat. 
Lat. lvii. 427). [C. H.] 

OCTAVIUS (8), a presbyter of Sirmium, 
who, c. 366, subscribed with Innooektius (28). 

[C. H.] 

OCTAVIUS (4), a bishop at the council of 
Nisroes in 394 (Hefele, ii. 405). In 401 he and 
two other bishops, Remigins and Treferius, were 
acquitted at the council of Turin (can. III.) on 
the charge of having performed some unlawful 
ordinations (Hardouin, i. 958). [C. H.] 

OCTOBER. [Lyoss, Martyrs op.] 

ODA, widow, said by some to have been 
daughter of Childcbert IK., king of the Franks. 
She was married to Bogo or Boggus, duke of 
Aquitaine, and after his death, A.D. 688, devoted 
herself to religion, and specially to active works 
of charity to the suffering and poor. She died 
about a.d. 722, and her relics are preserved at 
Amay. Her feast is Oct. 23. The authority 
is a late Life by an anonymous writer, given 
with valuable commentarius praevius by the 
Bollandists {Acta SS. Oct. x. 139), but she is a 
favourite with French writers as the pattern 
of chaste widowhood. (Chevalier, Scpert. Moyen 
Age, 1661). [J. G.] 

ODDA (Oda), virgin, patron of Rhoda in 
Brabant, commemorated Nov. 27. She is called 
daughter of a king of Scotia ; Dempster says, of 
Eugenius V. In her legend there is nothing 
distinctive beyond her residence at Rhoda in the 
<5th or 8th century, and the elevation of her 
remains by bishop Othbert in 1103. (Dempster, 
H. E. Scot. ii. 509 ; O'Hanlon, Jr. SS. ii. 72, 
giving a useful resume 1 .) [J. G.] 

ODDO, of Mercia. [Doddo.] 

ODHBAN (Odranus, Oran, Otteran) is 
a name often met with in Irish hagiology, 
and perhaps is allied to the Latin Adrianus. 
<Kor lists of Odhran or Odranus, see Colgan, 
Acta SS. 372 n. lf , 540 n. 1 ) 

(1) Odhran, monk of Iona under St. 
Columba, to whom he was closely related. His 
feast is Oct. 27. Colgan (T. T. 506 c. 3) calls 
him monk of Deny, and Skene {Celt. Scot. 35 n.) 
might accept the gloss of Aengus as identify- 
ing him with Odhran of Lattaragh, but the 
dates prevent it. Of his life there is no account 
till the close, when the curious legend is told by 


O'Donnell (Colgan, T. T. 411 c. 12) of Odhran's 
choice to die and be the first of St. Columba'a 
followers to take corporal possession of Iona. 
His death is assigned to 563, the year of St. 
Columba's arrival. His fame in the West of 
Scotland is attested by the number of dedica- 
tions. On Iona the Reilig Odbrain, and St. 
Oran's chapel, dating from about the 12th 
century and said to have been the place of 
burial for the Scotch, Irish, and Norwegian 
kings, are well known. (On St. Odhran, see 
Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 35 ; Boll. Acta SS. 27 Oct. 
xii. 342-4, with full Sylloge Historica by De 
Buck trying to discriminate the many Odrani 
and believing this to be St. Adnmnan's Brito ; 
Reeves, & Adamn. 203 et al., ed. 1857.) 

(2) Odhiian, disciple and successor of St. 
Senan at Iniscathay in the Shannon about A.D. 
580. (Cotton, Fast. i. 431 ; Colgan, Acta SS. 
537.) [J. G.] 

ODILBERTUS (Edelbertus, Odbertos, 


jiertus, Oldepertus), archbishop of Milan, to 
whom Charlemagne addressed a letter of ques- 
tions on the subject of Baptism (Baluze, Capitu- 
laria, t. i. p. 483). He presided from 805 to 814 
(Ughelli, rtal. Sac. iv. 75; Cappelletti, Le 
Chiese d' Hal. xi. 134, 202 ; Ccillier, xii. 185, 
238). [C. H.] 

ODILIA (Odila, Othilia, Ottilia), virgin 
and abbess, has an abundant literature, but her 
biography is based on a life of the eleventh cen- 
tury, which is entirely unhistorical (Mabillon, 
A. SS. O.S.B. iii. 2, pp. 441, ed. 1734. As patron 
of Alsace, and specially of Hohenburg, where her 
relics are still largely resorted to, she is held in 
great repute on the confines of France and Ger- 
many. Very briefly stated, tradition represents 
her as daughter of Adalric or Ethico, duke of 
Alsace, and Berchsind his wife. Being born 
blind, she was exposed by her father's order, but 
afterwards rescued from death, and at the age of 
twelve baptized by a bishop called Erhardt, 
when her eyes were at once opened (but see 
Boll. A.SS. Jul. iii. 212, 214 sq., upon this bap- 
tism and miracles, and claiming them as the 
work of St. Hildulfus of Treves ; the father is 
Ethico or Athicus). Her father in remorse built 
a nunnery for her at Hohenburg, where she 
died Dec. 13th, A.D. 720. She is invoked in 
affections of the eyes, and has as her symbol two 
eyes lying upon a book (Herzog, Keal-Encycl. vi. 
197; Hist. Litt. de la France, viii. 89-1). 
[Hildulfus.] [J. G.] 

ODILLEOZ, a monk sent to Alcuin in 796 
from the brethren of the church of St. Lindgar, 
which may have been at Autun, or else at 
Minister thai in Alsace (Alcuin, ep. 52 and note, 
in Pat. Lat. c. 217), or Murbach (Dummler, Moti. 
Ale. p. 340). [C. H.] 

ODILO (Otilo), dux of Bagoaria (Bavaria), 
who greatly encouraged the mission of St. Boni- 
face among his people, and in conjunction with 
him established the first four bishoprics of 
Bavaria (Othlo, Fit. Bonif. num. 31, in Pat. Lat. 

His marriage in 742 with Chiltrudis or Hiltru- 
dis, the daughter of Charles Martel, and his 
defeat in 743 at the Lech by Carloman and 

Digitized by 



Pippin, are recorded by Fredegarius (Pat. Lot. 
taxi. 681) sod gome anonymous annals (Bouquet, 
T. S3, 196, Ti 97, 137). [C. H.] 

ODLANDUS, 10th abbat of St. Bertin, circ. 
795-804. There is extant a document dated in 
the 20th year of Charles the Great's reign pur- 
porting to be a grant by him to Autlandus or 
Audlandus, and his monks, of the privilege of 
hunting wild beasts in the monastery domain, but 
not in the royal forests, for skins to bind books 
for the monks and make them gloves and belts. 
This document was published by Mabillon in the 
De Be Dipt. p. 631, and thence transferred into 
Migne's collection (Pat. Lot. xcvii. 976), but it 
is rejected as spurious by Le Cointe. Odlandus 
acquired for his foundation several villages, 
with their churches and dependencies, and in 
797 established his residence at Arques, where 
he executed some engineering works for the 
improvement of the channels of the Aa and built 
dour-mills, for which he afterwards acquired 
the grant of a monopoly. The church of St. 
Martin in the same parish which had been 
destroyed by Northmen, he re-established, and 
attached to it ten monks. (Laplane, Let Abbes de 
Samt-Bertin, i. 39-42 ; Gait. Christ, iii. 487-8.) 

[S. A. B.] 

ODOACEK (Odovacar), king. The first is 
the generally received form of the name, but the 
latter is correct. (Odovacar, Cassiod., Chrxm. and 
MS. in Marini Papiri Dipt. n. 82 ; Odov ACHAE and 
Odobaqar, Eugyppius, Vita S. Sev. 14, 40, in 
Mignc, Patr.Lat, Uii. 1176, 1192; AUDOACHAR, 
Or. Gent. Lang, in Man. Germ. Hist. Script. 
Ber. Lang. 3, the last form supporting Grimm's 
derivation from Audags and vakrs = a good 
watcher, Pallmann, ii. 168.) His father's name 
was Edecon (An. Vol., Ant. M. 209), who has 
been identified by Gibbon and others with the 
Edecon mentioned by Priscus, and with Edica, 
king of the Scyri (Jord. Get. 130), but this 
identification, though possibly correct, is un- 
proved. He was a Teuton, but of what tribe is 
uncertain. The statement that he was a Scyrian, 
'Ant. M. 209) seems the most probable, though 
Jordanes (Rom. 44) makes him a Rugian. At 
any rate he sprang from one of the four kindred 
tribes, the Scyri, Rugi, Turcilingi, or Heruli, 
who in the middle of the fifth century dwelt 
between the Danube and the Carpathians in 
what is now Northern Hungary. He was born 
in A.D. 433 (Ant. H.). He is first mentioned as 
one of a band of young barbarians who visited 
the hermit Severinus on their way through 
Koricnm to seek their fortunes in Italy. The 
taint predicted his future elevation. " Go," 
said he, " to Italy. Thou art now clad in skins, 
but shalt soon be able to give costly gifts to 
many." (Eugyppius, vbi supra.') He probably 
took service in the Foederati, the barbarian 
auxiliaries who had become the backbone of 
the Roman army, and in a.d. 472 had risen so 
high that his adhesion to Ricimer in his revolt 
against Anthemius is expressly mentioned (Ant. 
M. 209). In the summer of a.d. 476 the foederati, 
whose suspicions may have been aroused by the 
attempts of Nepos and Orestes to remove them 
from Italy to defend against the Visigoths the 
remnants of the Roman possessions in Gaul, 
demanded from Orestes, the father of the 
puppet emperor Romulus, a grant of one-third 




of the lands of Italy (Procopius, Goth. i. 1). 
A refusal was followed by a mutiny, which 
probably broke out in the north-east of Italy. 
Recruits from the Rugians, Scyrians, Turcilingi 
and Heruli may have marched across Noricum to 
join their kinsfolk, thus supplying a ground 
for the false conception of Odovacar as a barbarian 
invader of Italy. The campaign was a short one. 
On August 23rd (An. Cusp.) Odovacar, then 
one of the imperial guard, was proclaimed king. 
On the 27th, Pavia, where Orestes had retreated, 
fell, and the city experienced all the horrors of 
a storm, though Epiphanius did all he could to 
protect the inhabitants. [Epiphanius (13).] 
The next day Orestes was taken and executed 
at Placentia. Odovacar marched on Ravenna, 
captured Paulus, the brother of Orestes, at the 
Pineta on September 4th, put him to death, and 
took Ravenna, where Romulus had taken refuge. 
From pity or from policy he spared his life, and 
granted him the Campanian villa of Lucullus 
with an annual pension. 

The first act of Odovacar was to negotiate a 
treaty with Genseric, who ceded him the greater 
part of Sicily on the condition of his paying 
tribute for it (Victor Vit., de Pers. Vand. i. 4, 
in Patr. Lot. lviii. 187). His probable motive 
was to provide for the corn supply of Italy, 
which had been seriously diminished by the 
loss of Africa. He granted his soldiers the 
lands Orestes had refused (Procopius, vbi supra), 
but the execution of Count Brachila on July 11th 
of the following year (An. Cusp.) seems to indi- 
cate a mutinous tendency among them. 

His relations with the East and the conquered 
Romans were in a critical state. The latter 
could not reconcile themselves to the dominion 
of a barbarian, and the orthodox clergy could 
still less tolerate the supremacy of an Arian. 
It is remarkable in the Papal correspondence 
how completely Odovacar is ignored, and Zeno 
regarded as the sole legitimate monarch. The 
emperor Nepos, too, though a fugitive from Italy, 
retained his hereditary dominions in Dalmatia, 
and was acknowledged by the fragment of Gaul 
that remained Roman. After the restoration 
of Zeno at the close of a.d. 477, envoys from 
the different parties in the West appeared at 
Constantinople. The deposed Romulus (no donbt 
at the instigation of Odovacar), caused the 
senate to send Latinus and Madusins to inform 
Zeno that they required no separate emperor 
in the West, but that one would be sufficient 
for the whole empire. Odovacar they said was 
qualified to govern by his ability in both civil 
ind military affairs, and they asked Zeno to 
grant him the dignity of patrician, and commit 
to him the government of Italy. From Odovacar 
a separate embassy came, and Nepos also sent to 
congratulate Zeno on his restoration and to 
request his aid in recovering the empire. Zeno, 
from the influence of his wife Verina and a fellow- 
feeling for the misfortunes of Nepos, was inclined 
to favour him, but lacked the power ; he there- 
fore returned diplomatic answers. He reproached 
the envoys of the senate with having killed one 
of the two emperors they had received from 
the East and with having expelled the other. 
They knew, he said, what their duty was, namely, 
to welcome the surviving emperor on his return. 
He directed Odovacar to seek the dignity of 
patrician from Nepos, but added that he would 


Digitized by 





grant it himself if Nepos did not anticipate 
him. He trusted that Odovacar would welcome 
back the emperor who had granted him such an 
honour, and in his letter to Odovacar, he 
addressed him as patrician (Malchns). It was 
probably on this occasion that the imperial 
regalia of the West were sent to Constantinople 
(An. Vol. 64), and probably also that envoys 
from the fragment of Gaul that was still 
Roman appeared at Constantinople, and that 
Zeno was inclined to lean to the side of Odovacar 
as against them (Candidas). 

After the murder of Nepos in A.D. 480, 
Odoviicar invaded and conquered Dalmatia, 
putting his murderers to death. This war 
apparently occupied the years 481 and 482 
(An. Cusp., Cass. Chron.). Odovacar's dominions 
thus became conterminous with those of Zeno, 
a fact which did not tend to improve the rela- 
tions between them. In 484 111 us sought the 
aid of O.lovacar in his revolt against Zeno, 
which he refused, bat two years later he made 
preparations to assist him (Ant. M. 214). Zeno's 
counter-more was to stir up the Rugians against 
Odovacar. In the war which followed in a.d. 
487, Odovacar was completely successful, almost 
exterminating the Rugians and capturing their 
king Fava or Feletheus, who was afterwards 
executed, and Gisa his queen (Eugypp. 54, 
An. Vol. 48, An. Cusp.). He sent, perhaps in 
irony, a portion of the spoils to Zeno, who 
simulated a satisfaction he did not feel. An 
invasion by Frederic the son of Fava the next 
year was repelled by Onulf, Odovacar's brother, 
and Frederic fled to Theoderic. By Odovacar's 
orders, Northern Noricum was then evacuated by 
the Romans that remained there. (Eugypp. xii.) 

So far the Eastern diplomacy had failed, 
but Zeno's next move was more successful. 
Theoderic, the king of the Ostro-Goths, had in 
486 and 487 made two invasions, on the second 
of Which he had penetrated within twelve miles 
of Constantinople. Zeno now by a master- 
stroke of policy persuaded him to undertake an 
expedition against Odovacar, thus ensuring the 
destruction of one or other of his enemies, and 
the removal of the most dangerous from his 
neighbourhood. The fugitive Frederic probably 
threw his influence into the same scale, and 
there was apparently some tie of relationship 
between Theoderic and the Rugian royal family. 
In the winter of 488 Theoderic with the Gothic 
nation evacuated Moesia and marched into Italy. 
Odovacar was defeated on August 28th, 489, on 
the IsonzO, and a month later in a second great 
battle at Verona, and fled to Ravenna. Milan 
and Paria surrendered, and the greater part of 
Odovacar's army, headed by Tufa, his magister 
militum, went over to the conqueror. Tufa was 
sent to besiege Ravenna, but by a double treason 
went over to his old master, betraying to him 
Theoderic's officers. Odovacar was thus enabled 
to take the offensive ; he marched in the spring 
of 490 on Milan, and besieged Theoderic in Paria 
(Knnod. V. Epiph. in Patr. Lot. lxiii. 225). He 
was rescued from this perilous position by 
reinforcements of the kindred Visigoths from 
Gaul, and a third great battle on the Adda on 
August 1 1th ended in the total defeat of Odovacar. 
Still he defended himself bravely for two years 
and a half in Ravenna, making frequent sallies, 
including one on July 10th, 491, on the side of 

the Pineta, which caused great slaughter on 
both sides. His position grew more hopeless, 
Cesena alone outside Ravenna was held for him, 
provisions grew very scarce, and in August 492, 
Theoderic blockaded Ravenna by sea. On the 
other hand the Goths were weary of the Ion; 
siege, and on February 27 th, 493, a peace waa 
arranged by the mediation of John the arch- 
bishop of Ravenna (Procop. ubi supra ; Agnellns, 
Lib. Pont, in Script. Per. Lang. 303), Odovacar 
giving his son Thela or Ocla, whom he had 
proclaimed Caesar (Ant. //.), as a hostage, on 
the terms that Theoderic and Odovacar should 
reign jointly over Italy, and Ravenna sur- 
rendered on March 5th. The arrangement 
could not be a durable one, and in fact lasted 
just ten days. Theoderic, perhaps justly, sus- 
pected Odovacar of plotting againrt him, and 
resolred to anticipate him. Odovacar wa» 
sitting in the palace of Lauretum, when two of 
his men entered and seized his hands a* sup- 
pliants. Armed men who had been waiting in 
the adjoining rooms immediately rushed in, bat 
hesitated to strike. Theoderic, however, plunged 
his sword through his body, crying oat, "So 
thoa hast treated my kinsfolk." His brother 
was shot to death in the church where he had 
taken sanctuary, his wife Sunigilda starved to 
death, and his son first was banished to Gaul, 
and when he escaped was put to death (Ant. 
H.~). The remnants of Odovacar's army shared 
his fate (An. Vol. 56). 

As has been previously noticed, Odovacar in* 
terfered little in ecclesiastical matters, and i» 
but little noticed by ecclesiastical writers. 
Though an Anan himself, he appears to have 
treated the orthodox with mildness and justice. 
After his accession he wrote to S. Severinua, 
promising to grant whatever he wished (Eugypp. 
40), and at the request of Epiphanies (13), re- 
mitted for five years the taxes of Pavia (Ennod. 
V. Epiph. in Patr. Lot. lxiii. 224). The only- 
occasion on which he took a prominent part in 
church matters was at the Papal election after 
the death of Simplicius, of which a full account, 
is giren under Felix III. 

The significance of Odovacar's place in history 
is due to two facts : that by him the separate 
line of Western emperors was extinguished, and 
the first German kingdom established in Italy. 
Thus the field was left clear for the develop- 
ment of the Papal power, and for the eventual 
establishment of a Teutonic emperor. Yet no 
contemporary seems to have marked the signi- 
ficance of the deposition of Romulus or to have- 
realised that the Western line was to end with 
him. There had been previous interregna, and, 
not to mention Romulus and Glycerins, Nepos was 
still emperor de jure and over a considerable ter- 
ritory emperor de facto. The newly discovered 
fact that Odovacar, probably as a last resource, 
proclaimed his son emperor, shews that it was 
quite possible that the Western line might hare 
been restored. Again, Odovacar rnlod in a two- 
fold capacity, the Teutonic part of his subjects 
as king, while over the Roman part he wielded 
as patrician what was in theory a delegated 
authority. It is noticed (Cass. C/iron.') that he 
did not assume the purple or other royal orna- 
ments, and he seems to have styled himself 
simply king, without adding any tribal or 
territorial designation. He is once indeed called 

Digitized by 



rex Italiae by a contemporary writer (Victor 
Vit. utn supra), bat thia is probably a descrip- 
tion and not a formal title. Insecure as the 
position of his successor was, that of Odovacar 
was far more so. The former was hereditary 
king of a united and organized nation, while 
Odoracar could only rely on the support of the 
army, composed of fragments of different and 
discordant tribes. 

The authorities for his history are very 
meagre and fragmentary. The principal are 
the chronicle known as Anonymas Cnspiniani 
(An. Cusp.), the fragments discovered by Valois 
(An. Vol.), Jordanes (ed. Mommsen 1882), Cat- 
siodorus (Chronicon) ; and especially John of 
Antioch, many fragments of whose history are 
pa Wished in Muller's Fragments Hist. Grate. 
ir. (Ant. M.\ and others, including one of great 
value, by Mommsen in Hermes vi. (Ant. H.). 
Modern accounts of Odoracar are given by 
Tillemont, Emp. vi, Gibbon, ch. 36, 39, Dahn, 
Die KOnige der Oermanen ii., and a very full one 
by Pallmann (GeschicKte der Vdlkeraanderung 
ii.). Mr. Uodgkin's Invaders of Italy gives an 
excellent account of his history up to a.d. 477. 
The relation of the different authorities has 
been examined by Waitz(iVacAr»cAten,GfSttingen, 
1865-81, and Holder-Egger, N. Archie, i. 215). 

[F. D.] 

ODOARIUS, first bishop of Lugo, after its 
recovery from the Mahommedans. He had fled 
before the invaders, and after long banishment, 
on the recapture of Lugo by Alphonso I., re- 
turned there with a number of his retainers and 
others, rebuilt the city, which he found wasted 
and uninhabited, and became bishop of it. He 
buih various churches, and settled his retainers 
in various villages in the surrounding country, 
and planted vineyards and orchards. Two wills 
of his are extant, one of which is dated in a.d. 
747, in which be styles himself "Archiepiscc- 
pus." By them he gave the villages and 
churches be had founded to the see of Lugo. 
He also assisted in repeopling Braga after its 
recovery. According to an ancient Kalendar, he 
died on September 21st, 786. (Bsp. Sag. xl. 89 ; 
(ham, Kirckengeschkhte von Bpanien, il. (2), 
-*51.) [P. D.] 

ODOBEOCUS. [Edobichus.] 

ODRENE (Odrincs, Hvidhretni, Hrn- 
DHKS), bishop of Moville, co. Down, died A.D. 
694. (Ann. Bit. a.d. 693; Reeves, Heal. Ant. 
152 ; Cotton, Fast. Hib. iii. 219.) [J. G.] 

ODTJINU8, a presbyter, to whom Alcuin 
addressed his epistle De Baptismi laeremtmii.t 
(Pat. Lot. ci. 611). [<J. H.] 

ODUliFUS (AuDULrus, Aotoltos), count, 
a friend of Alcuin, who asks Arno archbishop 
of Salzburg to remind him to be just in 
judgment and merciful to the poor (Ep. 153, 
Froben. 113, and notes in Pat. Lot. 0. 403 a). 
The letter belongs to the year 805, when Odulfus 
was • missus regius conjointly with Arno (vid. 
the second capitulary of that year, capit. 7, in 
Baloze, Capitularia, t. i. p. 425 ; and Meichel- 
beck's Bistoria Frisingensis, t. L p. 2, Imtrum. 
118, 123, pp. 90, 93). He died in 819, as re- 
corded in the Brevet Annates Batisponenses, 
given by MabiUon (Vetera Analecta, 1723, 
p. 368> [a H.] 



(Kemble, C. D. 35). [Howmusd.] [C. H.] 

OEGETCHAIB, bishop of Mahee Island, co. 
Down, died a.d. 735. (.4nn. Olt. A.D. 734, 
calling him Oedoedcar. See also Reeves, Eccl. 
Ant. 149 j Cotton, Fast. Bib. iii. 218.) [J. G.] 

OENGUS (1) (Aenghus), son of Tibraide 
or Tipraite, priest or abbat of Clonfad, county 
Westmeath, is known only for his hymn in 
praise of St. Martin, written in the Irish cha- 
racter and in rude latinity ; it is printed with 
notes by Dr. Todd (Book of Hymns, Fasc. ii. 171 
sq.). From the Scholiast's Preface we learn 
that it was written in expectation of a visitation 
of the churches of St Colum-cille in Ireland by 
the abbat of the parent house, St. Adamnan, 
probably at the close of the 7th century He 
died A.D. 746. (Ann. XJlt. a.d. 745.) [J. G.j 

OENGUS (8), son of Crunnmhael, abbat of 
Duleek, co. Meath, died A.D. 783. (Ann. XJlt. 
A.D. 782.) [J. G.] 

OENGUS (8), son of Urguist king of the 
Picta. His name assumes many forms — Anous, 


Ukuist (Skene, Chron. 496; if. B. B. 288, 
662-3). He was. one of the most powerful 
kings of Pictavia and Hungus of the Legend of 
3. Andrew, but it antedates the occurrence by 
four centuries. (Skene, Chron. pass.; Innes, 
Crit. Ess. i. 101 sq.) [Hungus.] [J. G.] 

OENNA, Jan. 20, Mac ua Laighisi, abbat 
of Clonmacnoise, King's County, succeeded the 
founder St. Ciaran, A.D. 549, and died a.d. 57i> 
(Ann. Tig., as Aengusius; Gams, Ser. Ep. 212) 
as a bishop. (O'Hanlon, Ir. SS. 1. 382.) [J. G.] 

OFELLUS, bishop of Cleopatris in Egypt. 
Mentioned in the paschal letter of Theophilus, 
bishop of Alexandria for the year 404 (translated 
by Jerome, and forming Ep. 100 in his works), 
as then recently appointed. [W. H. F.l 

OFFA (1), the youngest son of Ethelfrith, 
king of Northumbrift (A.D. 593-617), by his 
second Wife Acha, daughter of Ella and sister of 
Edwin (Symeon Duflelm. ed. Surtees Son. i. 209, 
218). During the reign of Edwin, Offa and his 
brothers took refuge in Scotland, and several of 
them, at least, were baptized at Iona (Id. 210 ; 
Beda, iii. 3 ; Vita S. Cohmbae, i. 113; S. C. 20, 
43). They returned on the death of Edwin, but 
we hear no more of Offa. [J. R.] 

OFFA (8), a son of Aldfrith, king of 
Northumbria (A.D. 685-705). His mother, 
probably, was Cuthburh, sister of Ina, king of 
Wessex. Symeon of Durham (H. B. sub anno 
750, and B. E. Dunelm. ii. 17) tells us that to 
escape from his enemies, he fled for protection to 
the body of St. Cuthbert at Lindisfarne, whence 
when half-dead with hunger, he was dragged out 
and slain. He had probably incurred the 
animosity of Eadbert, king of Northumbria, 
who also imprisoned Kynewulf bishop of Lindis- 
farne, and pnt his see in commission. The king 
was probably affronted with the bishop for 
allowing Offa to take sanctuary (Pref. to Symeon, 
H. B. ed. Surtees Soc. xvU.-xrul). [J. K.] 

F 2 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



OFFA ($), king of the East Saxons, ion of 
Sighere and nephew of Sebbi, who, after a reign 
of thirty years, died about the year 695. Sebbi, 
according to Bede, was succeeded by his sons 
Sighard and Snefred (H. E. iv. 11). Offa's ac- 
cession may have taken place either on his 
father's death, the date of which is unknown, or 
on his uncle's death, when he may have obtained 
his father's share of the kingdom, or on the 
death or displacement of his cousins. Bede 
(H. E. v. 19) describes him as a youth of great 
beauty and devotion, most beloved by his 
people. Out of a spirit of piety he left his 
country, wife, lands, and kinsfolk, for the sake 
of Christ, that he might receive a hundredfold 
more in this present life, and in the world to 
come life eternal. Accordingly, when Coenred, 
king of Mercia, in A.D. 709, went on pilgrimage 
to Rome, Offa accompanied him, received the 
tonsure, and spent the rest of his life as a 

To this story a few other particulars are 
added by later writers. Florence of Worcester 
(Appendix, Man. Hist. Brit. p. 637) alleges that 
Offa was persuaded to go to Rome by Kines- 
witha, the daughter of Penda, whom he wished 
to marry, and that he was accompanied by 
Ecgwin, bishop of Worcester, who on the occasion 
of this journey obtained from pope Constantine a 
confirmation of his foundation at Evesham (ibid. 
540, 637). William of Malmesbnry repeats the 
story (G. P. lib. iv. § 180 ; G. R. lib. i. § 98), 
adding that by Kineswitha he was "edoctus 
amores mutare in melius." As Penda, Kines- 
witha's father, died fifty-four years before the 
pilgrimage was undertaken, the lady must have 
been too old for Offa's bride, and could hardly be 
the wife whom Bede mentions him as forsaking. 
She may, however, have been an instructress, or 
adviser. The connexion of Ecgwin's visit to 
Rome with the pilgrimage of Offa and Coenred 
is also bronght out in the Evesham charters, 
which are incorporated in the life of Ecgwin 
(Mab. AA. SS. O.S.B. saec. iii. pt. 1, pp. 320, 
321). Ecgwin himself is made to mention their 
companionship in a foundation charter (p. 320 ; 
cf. Kemble, C. D. 64 ; Chron. Evesham, ed. Ma- 
cray, pp. 17-20) ; and the two kings are repre- 
sented as agreeing with and confirming the 
charter of Constantine, which likewise mentions 
their visit to Rome (Mab. 1. c. p. 321 ; Chron. 
Evesham, p. 171 ; Councils, Sic, ed. Uaddan and 
Stnbbs, iii. 281, 282). The life of Ecgwin by 
Brihtwald further implies that the two kings 
returned from Rome with the bishop (Mab. 1. c. 
p. 324), but this is at variance with the state- 
ment of Bede, and is mixed up with some other 
unhistorical statements. 

The name of Offa appears in other charters 
in connexion with Ecgwin. A grant of lands at 
Scottarith, Hnuthyrste, and Hellerelege, made 
by Offa, " rex Merciorum," but attested by 
Ecgwin, is referred by Kemble (K. C. D. 55) to 
Offa of Essex ; and Offa, as king of the East 
Angles, is made to join with Coenred in an Eves- 
ham charter granted at Rome (K. C. D. 61 ; 
Mon. Angl. ii. 15). This confusion seems to 
have misled even William of Malmesbnry, who 
calls Offa king of the East Angles (Q. P. §§ 160, 
180, 232). This has led to another mistake ; 
the East Anglian kings being descended from 
an early Wuffa, bore the name of Uffings : some 


confusion of this name with that of East Saxon 
Offa, whose sanctity was well established by his 
pilgrimage, led perhaps to the idea that the 
Offings were a saintly stock, and to it accordingly 
Ercenwold and his sister Ethelbnrga are referred. 
The East Saxon Offa had an ancestor of his own 
name, Offa, father of Escwin, and eighth in 
descent from Woden (Mon. Hist. Brit. p. 628). 


OFFA (4), king of Mercia, 757-796. 

Offa occupies a most important place in the 
history of the English nation in the eighth cen- 
tury. He is the most powerful king of the 
greatest of the English kingdoms ; his extant 
charters are more numerous than those of any 
other king of the age; his relations to both 
pope and emperor are more definite, and the 
general impression as to his character and policy, 
which the history of the time leaves on the 
mind of investigators, is at once more distinct 
and more imposing than that left by any other 
contemporary sovereign except Charles the 
Great. Yet it must be confessed that the mate- 
rials for forming a consecutive history of his 
reign are extremely jejune : they are distinct, 
but very meagre, and legend has been unfor- 
tunately active in filling in the outlines. The 
following sketch contains no more than is re- 
quired for piecing together the several incidents 
of his career, the more important parts of which 
have been treated under other titles. 

Offa was the son of Thingferth, the son of 
Eanulf, who was the founder of the family 
monastery of Bredon. Eannlf was the son of 
Osmod, the son of Eowa, the brother of Penda, 
and was first cousin to Ethelbald. Offa was 
eighteenth in descent from Woden, and thir- 
teenth from Offa, the son of Warmnnd, whose 
mythological history, going far into heathen 
times, was a part of the common stock of 
English and Scandinavian legend. It may be 
here stated that the lives of the two Offas, 
ascribed, but on very uncertain authority, to 
Matthew Paris, are an attempt to bring the 
two heroes into historical connexion, with the 
unfortunate result of making the Mercian Ofl'n 
almost as shadowy as his predecessor. Accord- 
ing to this fabulous narrative, the mother of 
Offa was named Marcel Una, and he himself in 
childhood bore the name of Winefred. 

On the death of Ethelbald, which we have 
good reason for dating in 757, the Mercian 
throne was filled for a short time by a tyrant 
named Beornred, whose name is not found iu 
the pedigrees, and who perished within the 
year, being either driven into exile by his 
people, as Matthew Paris circumstantially states, 
or, as is perhaps more probably put by Florence 
of Worcester, being killed by Offa (M. Paris, 
Hist. Major, i. 342, 343 ; Flor. Wig. M. H. B. 
638). The chronicle merely tells us that he 
was expelled. Wesscx and Northumbria expe- 
rienced a change of sovereigns about the same 
time, or in the following year. Offa retained 
his authority without recorded disquietude, and 
his history is a blank for several years. Unless 
Ethelbald's power had been sorely diminished in 
the closing years of his reign, or the influence 
of Mercia had collapsed under Beornred, Offa 
must have inherited a claim to the superiority 
over the East Anglian, East Saxon, and Kentish 

Digitized by 



kingdoms, • brisk rivalry with Wessex, and • 
position of triumphant security on the side of 
the Welsh. It is probable, however, that in 
most of these respects he had heavy work to 
maintain his authority : we find him in the 
course of his reign dealing severally but sum- 
marily with each of his neighbours, and the 
annals of the time breathe no suspicion of any 
break in his continuous successes. 

After he had been for fourteen years on the 
throne, we learn from the Northumbrian annals 
preserved by Simeon of Durham (if. H. B. 661) 
that in 77 1 he subdued the Hestingi : a mys- 
terious notice, which cannot be satisfactorily 
explained. Possibly the Hestingi are the East 
Angles, of whose history at the time nothing is 
known but that they were under the rule of 
Ethelred, the father of Ethelbert, who subse- 
quently married a daughter of Offa. His next 
recorded victory was over Kent : in a battle 
fought at Otford in 775 (corr. for 773, Chr. S. 
M. H. B. 334) he defeated the national army. 
Unfortunately we do not know the name of the 
king of Kent, who must have led the host ; for 
Alric, the son of Wihtred, whom William of 
Malmesbury represents as defeated on the occa- 
sion (<?. Ji. i. § 15), must have been long dead 
[Antic; Kent, Kings op]. The blow seems 
to have been successful ; although there were 
risings in Kent more than once before the end of 
Offa's reign, the kingdom was practically de- 
pendent on Hercia until it was won by Egbert, 
about 824. 

In the year 779 (Chr. & 777) OfTa fought with 
Cynewulf of Wessex a decisive battle at Beu- 
smgton, in Oxfordshire. The victory which he 
there obtained added Oxfordshire permanently 
to Mercia, and gave the opportunity, taken some 
half-century later, of bringing the episcopal see 
of Middle Anglia from Leicester to Dorchester. 
It is unnecessary to inquire minutely into the 
possible cause of the struggle between two 
states which by position and history could not 
fail to be rivals. Following up the string of 
Offa's successes, we next come to his relations 
with the British tribes on the western border. 
The Welsh annals ( it. H. B. p. 834) mention two 
devastations by Offa, one in 778, a second in 
784. Possibly we may refer to these dates the 
construction of Offa's dyke, the great boundary 
fortification between Mercia and Wales, which 
extended from the Wye to the Dee. The interest, 
however, of the years 780 to 790 is mainly 
ecclesiastical and diplomatic, and will be noticed 
farther on. The years were a period, if we may 
argue from the silence of historians, of internal 
peace, and marked by a policy intended to 
secure the consolidation of the Mercian power. 

In 786 the death of Cynewulf made way for 
Brihtric to ascend the West Saxon throne 
[Beorhtric]. It is possible that, although the 
influence of Offa may not have placed him 
there, he was sustained by Mercian support 
against the claims of Egbert, who had family 
pretensions in both Wessex and Kent [Egbert]. 
The marriage of Brihtric with Eadburga, a 
daughter of Offa, intended to secure peace 
between the two kingdoms, took place in 789 
{Chr. S. 787). The marriage of another daugh- 
ter, Ealhfleda, with Ethelred, king of Northum- 
bria, which took place at Catterick on Sept. 29, 
792, was probably a political measure also, 

OFFA 69 

although it is more probable that Ethelred 
needed the support of Offa than that Offa feared 
danger to his northern frontier in the disturbed 
condition of Northunibria, It was possibly in 
the same year, or more probably in 794, that 
Offa ordered the East Anglian king Ethelbert to 
be beheaded [Ethelbert], an act which not 
only suggested a topic for the embellishments of 
legend, but has left on Offa's memory its one 
great stain. The circumstances are very ob- 
scure, but the tradition of the fact is uniform, and 
it cannot be disproved. In 795, according to 
the Annalct Cambriae, Offa was engaged in 
hostilities with the Welsh, and ravaged Rienuch. 
The movement in Kent in favour of Eadbert 
Praen, which was doubtless in preparation about 
this time, did not break into war until Offa's 
death, which occurred in the following year. 

This short review of his wars shows that middle 
and eastern England were entirely under his 
hand during a great part of his reign, whilst 
during the latter years, by the marriages of his 
daughters, he secured a hold on Northumbria 
and Wessex. This no doubt justified foreign 
nations in regarding him as the chief ruler of 
the whole nation, in which character he appears 
in the correspondence of Alcuin and also of 
Charles the Great. Our knowledge of his re- 
lations with Charles dates from the point of time 
at which Alcnin took up his abode in the Frank 
kingdom, about 780 or 781. 

Probably the earliest trace of Offa's foreign 
diplomacy occurs in a letter of Adrian I. to 
Charles. The pope had heard from the king 
that Offa, "the king of the nation of the 
English," had signified to him, Charles, that 
certain persons, enemies of both kings, had 
informed the pope that Offa had proposed to 
Charles to depose him and appoint a German 
pope in his place. Charles, at Offa's request, 
contradicted the story, and Adrian accepted the 
contradiction, adding that until informed by 
Charles he had heard no such report, and that 
he would receive with welcome the envoys of 
the English king (Man. Carol, ed. JafliS, pp. 279- 
282). As Adrian and Offa were clearly on good 
terms in 786, this letter must belong to an 
earlier year. In 786 the pope sent the legates 
George and Theophylact to England ; they were 
accompanied by Wighod, a Frank abbat, sent 
with them by Charles. Their first visit after 
their reception in Kent was to Offa, who re- 
ceived them with great honour, and, after 
holding a conference with the West Saxon Cyne- 
wulf, took Theophylact with him into Mercia 
and the British border, whilst George and 
Wighod went into Northumbria. One resnlt 
of their mission was the holding of the legatine 
synods of 787; another, the institution of the 
see of Lichfield ; a third, probably, the consecra- 
tion of Egfrith, the son of Offa, as his coadjutor 
and presumptive successor. The last two mea- 
sures were intended to consolidate the accumu- 
lated power of Mercia. [See Gkoroiub (33); 
Jaenbert.] The canons of the legatine coun- 
cils, although very interesting generally, afford 
little that belongs peculiarly to England. They 
were, however, read in synod, " tam Latine 
quara Teutonice," and afford important data as 
to tithes, royal succession, vestiges of paganism, 
episcopal jurisdiction and visitation, and the 
differences between monks and canons, the latter 

Digitized by 




tin order which had nut yet under that name 
been introduced into Britain. The southern 
synod in which these acts were passed was at- 
tended and its acts were confirmed by Offa, arch- 
bishop Jaenbert, twelve bishops, four abbats, 
three duces, or ealdormen, and one "comes" 
(Cotroctfs, Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 461 ; Wilkins, 
i. 151). But the report of the legates is appa- 
rently incomplete, and no mention is made in it 
either of the division of the province or of the 
consecration of Egfrith. Both these measures 
were carried through the next year. We learn 
further, from a letter of pope Leo HI. to Kenulf, 
that in this synod Offa undertook to pay an 
annual subvention of 365 mancuses to the pope 
for the support of the poor and the maintenance 
of lamps at St. Peter's (Haddan and Stubbs, 
Councilt, iii. 445, 524). In 790 the two kings had 
quarrelled; mercantile intercourse was broken 
off, and Alcuin thought it likely that he would 
be sent to Offa on an embassy of peace (Ale ep. 
14, Jfon. Ale. p. 167). How this dispute ended 
we are not told. The name of Offa does not 
occur in connexion with the proceedings of 
Charles on the question of image worship, but 
he must be understood as acquiescing in the 
doctrine promulgated by Alcuin in the name of 
the princes and bishops of Britain (Sim. Dun. 
M. H. B. p. 6*7) in 792. 

It is probable that Ethelheard, the archbishop 
who succeeded Jaenbert in 793, was a Mercian, 
and owed his promotion to Offa's patronage ; he 
certainly aided with the Mercian party under 
Kenulf against the Kentish or West Saxon party 
under Eadbert Praen. Whether or no he was 
apprehensive of an alliance between the Kentish 
men and their great neighbours across the 
Channel, Offa must have felt safer with a de- 
pendent of hit own in the chair of Augustine. 
A few letters of Charles in the later years of 
Offa's reign concern England and Kent in par- 
ticular. In one the king of the Franks writes 
to 08a to urge the recall home of a Scottish 
priest who has eaten flesh in Lent, and is now 
■ esident at Cologne (Jfon. Carol, p. 851). In 
another, Charles urges Ethelheard to intercede 
with Ofia on behalf of certain exiles, attached 
to a person named Umhringstan, who had died in 
France, and who may have been concerned in 
the East Anglian troubles which cost Ethelbert 
his life, or in the Northumbrian disasters con- 
nected with the death of Ethelred {Councils, &c 
iii. 488, 498). A letter of the year 796 is 
extant, in which Charles promises to Offa immu- 
nity for pilgrims on the way to Rome, and 
informs him that he has sent presents to the 
episcopal sees of Mercia in memory of pope 
Adrian, who died in 795 ; in another letter from 
Alcuin to Offa we learn that Charles has dis- 
patched the gifts, but is sorely grieved to hear 
of the murder of Ethelred, which took place in 
April 796. This is the last trace of Offa in this 
direction. He died on the 29th of July 796, leaving 
his kingdom on the eve of outbreak of rebellion 
in several quarters, tho history of which belongs 
to the next two reigns. The general impression 
left by these letters is that both Charles and 
Alcuin had confidence in the good faith of Offa, 
and regarded him as the great man of the island. 

We turn next to Offa's relations to the 
churches of his kingdom. A very long series of 
charters illustrates the monastic and synodical 


history of his reign. The largest number is 
found in the Worcester Cartularies (Kemble, 
C I). No*. 105, 117, 118, 123, 125, 126, 127, 
128. 129, 131, 133, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 
145, 14«, 150, 154,156, 164, 166, 167); others 
record gifts to Peterborough (K. C. D. 165, 
168), Evesham (to. 130, 134, 147), Minster (io. 
106, 112), Rochester(ft. Ill, 132, 152, 155, 157), 
Christ Church, Canterbury (A. 121, 122, 153, 
158), St. Augustine's (*. 107, 108, 109, 119), 
Chertsey (ft. 151), the family monastery at 
Bradon (ib. 120, 138), and to some private per- 
sons (io. 137, 148). There are among them 
many forgeries, chiefly, however, connected with 
St. Alban's (K. C. D. 161, 162), CrowUnd (ib. 
163), and Westminster ; of the Worcester and 
Canterbury gifts most have been noticed in the 
articles on the respective bishops. They fill 
nearly ninety pages in Kemble's Codex Diplo- 
matictu, and comprise charters of the Kentish 
and South Saxon kings granted with the consent 
or attested with the confirmation of Offa. Of 
the St. Alban's and Westminster foundations a 
word is necessary. Offa is the traditional 
founder of St. Alban's. According to the legend, 
amplified and embellished by Matthew Paris. 
{Hist. Uaj. i. 356 sq. ; Vit. duor. Off. ed. Wats, 
p. 26 ; Jfon. Angl. ii. 214), the murder of Ethel- 
bert, king of the East Angles, was contrived by 
Offa's queen Kinethritha, in order to place East 
Anglia at Offa's disposal. The king was bitterly 
grieved at the murder, and banished his wife 
from his society. She died soon after, and Offa 
was left free to fulfil a vow which he had made 
some time before to build a monastery. By 
miracle, the place where St. Alban's body was 
buried was revealed to him ; he went with his 
bishops Ceolwulf and Unwona to Verolamium, 
and translated the saint. Offa then went to 
Rome to procure privileges for his monastery, 
was graciously received by the pope, to whom 
ha promised the tribute of Peter's pence, and 
on his return founded and endowed the abbey, at 
the head of which he placed Willegod as the 
first abbat. The whole of this seems to be 
fabulous : the charters which are assigned to the 
period are forged, and the journey to Rome is a 
mere invention. It is, however, quite possible 
that Offa was the founder of St. Alban's: such 
seems to have been the belief in the eleventh 
century, and it is accepted as true by Henry of 
Huntingdon and William of Malmesbury. At 
Westminster he was regarded in the age of the 
Conquest as a restorer, and some of his charters 
may be genuine (Jfon. Angl. i. 266 ; Kemble, C. D. 
149). His relations to Peterborough rest on a 
little better authority, or at least on more 
ancient fabrications, and the evidence of the in- 
terpolations in the Chronicles. His confirmation 
of the possessions of Chertsey is perhaps one 
degree nearer to authenticity, though still sus- 
picious (Jfon. Angl. i. 422). But many small 
Mercian foundations likewise looked back to 
him as patron, and it is improbable that where 
so much is ascribed to him some little part of 
the tradition should not be true. A grant to 
the abbey of St. Denys at Paris, dated in 790, 
and sealed, bestowing lands in Sussex, is printed 
in Birch's Cartularium Saxonicum, vol. i. pp. 

Offa's laws for Mercia were in existence in the 
time of Alfred, who selected, as he says, from 

Digitized by 



them as well as from those of Ethelbert and 
lne, those which were fitted for his subjects 
<Thorpe, Ancient Laics, p. 27). It is possible 
that the remnants of recorded Mercian law may 
fee fragments of a code of Ofla, but wc hare no 
warrant for affirming that they are so, and it 
would be very natural to ascribe any traces of 
national customs in any kingdom to its most 
fiimooj king. 

Offa's wife was Kinethritha ; his only son 
was Ecgferth, or Egfrith, who reigned for a few 
months after him. Of his daughters Eadburgn, 
the wife of Brihtric, had an evil report and a 
miserable end [Eadboroa]; Ealhfleda was the 
wife of Ethelred of Xorthuinbria, and had a hap- 
pier end [Elfleda]; Ethelburga, an abbess, 
was a friend of Alcuin [Etuelbukqa]. Florence 
of Worcester, who does not mention Elfleda or 
Ethelburga, names a daughter Elfthritha, who 
hred in rirginity, and may be the Elfrida who 
was wooed by the unfortunate Ethelbert. An- 
other, named Ethelswitha, occurs only in the 
Chertsey Charter (K. C. D. No. 151). 

The date of Offa's death is misplaced by two 
years in some of the MSS. of the Chronicle, and 
by other writers who hare copied the mistake : 
it really took place on the 29th of July, 796. 
<See Will. Halmesb. 67. J?, i. §§ 86, 87-94; 
Kemble, Cod. Dipt. i. pp. 128-206.) [S.] 

OFTFOB (Estfob, M. II. B. 622 ; Ostfob, 
W. Malmesb. G. P. § 136), the second bishop of 
Worcester (Mm. Hut. Brit. p. 622). He was a 
pupil of St. Hilda, with whom he spent much 
ihne in both her monasteries of Hartlepool and 
Whitby, in study of holy scripture. Haring 
exhausted the means at his disposal in the nor- 
thern monasteries he went to archbishop Theo- 
dore in Kent, where also he spent some time in 
study. Thence he proceeded to Rome, a work 
which, as Bede remarks, was at that time esteemed 
one of great virtue ; after his return he went to 
preach among the Hwiccii, then under the rule 
of king Osric, aud after long service, was, on the 
resignation of bishop Bosel, elected " omnium 
judicio " to fill his place. This event happened 
when Wilfrid was acting as bishop of the Middle 
Angles, and in the interval between the death of 
archbishop Theodore and the appointment of his 
successor. At the command of king Ethelred, 
Oftfor was consecrated by Wilfrid (Bede, H. E. 
hr. 23). All this information is derived from 
Bede, and is sufficiently circumstantial to fix the 
date of Oftfor's short episcopate ; the year 691 
is the date of the coincidence of Wilfrid's work 
Is Middle Anglia, and of the vacancy at Can- 

Florence of Worcester ( M. B. B. p. 539) places 
the death of Oftfor and the succession of Ecgwin 
under the year 692, which limits Oftfor's ponti- 
ficate to less than two years ; it may, however, 
be questioned whether this limitation is not 
conjectural, and whether the date of Ecgwin's 
accession ean be really ascertained. 

The Worcester Cartulary (K. C. D. 32) pre- 
serves a charter of Ethelred of Mertia, in which 
the king bestows on Oftfor thirty cassates at 
Heaaburg aad Aust, for the church of St. Peter 
at Worcester (cf. Mm. AngL i. 584). This 
charter is undated, and attested by bishops 
Headds aad Oftfor ; it is not open to any suspi- 
cion. Another grant, by the same king, of 



forty-four cassates at Fladbury, also to Oftfor, is 
rejected as spurious, and with it a charter ot 
Ecgwin which mentions it (K. C. IK 33 ; Mon. 
Angl. i. 585). Kemble's objection to this ilocu. 
meut is based upon the fact, that in it Ethelred 
speaks of Osthryth as " conjugis quondam meae,** 
whereas Osthryth was alive until 697, and Oftfor 
U understood to hare died iu 692. Supposing 
Oftfor, however, to hare lived longer, that ob- 
jection would ranish. A more valid one perhaps 
would be found in the fiict that the preamble, 
which is generally a distinguishing feature of a 
charter, is nearly the same in the Fladbury as in 
the Heanburg charter. As the date of Ecgwin's 
appointment rests ultimately in the words of 
Florence, the date of Oftfor's death must remain 

Oftfor attests a charter of Oshere, king of the 
Hwiccii, in which land is granted to a comes or 
gesith named Cuthbert, to construct a monastery 
for the abbess Cutswitha (Kemble, C. D. 36; 
Man. Angl. i. 585). This may be genuine, bnt it 
is undated. It is, however, attested by archbishop 
Brihtwald and cannot be earlier than 693. [S.] 

OGDOAD. The number eight plays an 
important part in Gnostic speculations ; bnt it 
is necessary to distinguish three different forms 
in which it has entered in different stages of the 
development of Gnosticism. 

Ogdoad 7 + 1. We need not hesitite to place 
as earliest that which has been described in the 
article Hebdohas (Vol. II. p. 850). Astrono- 
mical theories had introduced the conception of 
seven planetary spheres with an eighth above 
them, the sphere of the fixed stars. Hence the 
earliest Gnostic systems included a theory of 
seven heavens, and a supercelcstial region called 
the Ogdoad. When the Valentinian system had 
established belief in a still higher place, the 
supercelcstial space was called the middle region 
(see Mesotes); but Ogdoad was clearly its 
earlier name. In addition to the references 
given in the article Hebdomas, proving the 
continued use of the name Ogdoad in this sense 
even among Valentinians, we cite Excerpt. Theod. 
ex script. 63 (Clem. Al. p. 984). 

Ogdoad 6 + 2. In the system of Valentinus, 
the seven henrens, and eren the region abore 
them, were regarded as but the lowest and last 
stage of the exercise of creative power. Above 
them was the Pleroma, where were exhibited 
the first manifestations of evolution of subordi- 
nate existence from the great First Principle. 
In the earliest stages of that evolution we have 
(Iren. I. i.) eight primary Aeons constituting the 
first Ogdoad. Though this Ogdoad is first in 
order of evolution, if the Valentinian theory be 
accepted as true, yet to us who trace the history 
of the dcrelopment of that system the lower 
Ogdoad must clearly be pronounced the first, 
and the higher only as a subsequent extension of 
the previously accepted action of an Ogdoad. 
Possibly also the Egyptian doctrine of eight 
primary gods (Herod, ii. 145) may have contri- 
buted to the formation of a theory of which 
Egypt was the birthplace. In any case an 
Ogdoad 7 + 1 would hav> been inconsistent with 
a theory an essential part of which was the 
coupling its characters in pairs, male and female. 
Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 20, p. 176) connects the 
system of Valentinus with that of Simon, iu 

Digitized by 




which the origin of things is traced to a central 
first principle, together with six " roots." If 
for the one first principle we substitute a male 
and female principle, the 6 + 1 of Simon becomes 
the 6 + 2 of Valentinus. This very question, 
however, whether the first principle were to be 
regarded as single or twofold was one on which 
the Valentinians themselves were not agreed; 
and their differences as to the manner of count- 
ing the numbers of the primary Ogdoad confirm 
what has been said as to the later origin of this 

Ogdoad 4 + 4. The doctrine of an Ogdoad 
of the commencement of finite existence having 
been established by Valentinus, those of his 
followers who had been imbued with the Py- 
thagorean philosophy introduced a modification. 
In that philosophy the Tetrad was regarded with 
peculiar veneration, and held to be the foundation 
of the sensible world. The Pythagorean oath by 
the Tetrad is well known. For references see 
Meursius, Demiurg. Pythag. ch. 7, ap. Gronov. 
Thes. Or. Ant. col. 9 ; to which may be added 
Hippol. Ref. vi. 23, p. 179. We read there 
(Iren. I. xi.) of Secundus as a Valentinian who 
divided the Ogdoad into a right-hand and a left- 
hand Tetrad ; and in the cose of Marcus (7. ».), 
who largely uses Pythagorean speculations about 
numbers, the Tetrad holds the highest place in 
the system. [Maecus (17).] [G. S.] 

OIDDI, a priest who assisted Wilfrid in the 
conversion of the South Saxonr (Bed. H. E. iv. 
13). [Pdch, »./.] [C. H.] 

OIDILUALD, hermit of Fame (Bed. v. 1). 
[Ethelwald (3).] 

OEDILVALD, of Northumbria. [Etiiel- 

WALD (1).] 

Osenius), surnamed Fota (the Long), abbat of 
Clonard, co. Meath, died a.d. 654 (Ann. Tig.). 
He is referred to as an undoubted autho- 
rity by St. Adamnan (Vit. S. Col. i. c. 2; 
Colgan, T. T. 339). His feast U May 1. 

[J. G.] 

OlSSENE (Ossenius), abbat of Clonmac- 
noise, King's Co., died A.D. 706. (Ann. Tig. ; 
Ann. Ult. A.D. 705.) [J. G.] 

OJA (Ola), bishop of Barcelona, subscribes 
the canons of 5th and 6th councils of Toledo, 
held in June A.D. 636 and January A.D. 638. 
His predecessor Severus was alive in A.D. 633. 
No bishop of Barcelona is mentioned between 
A.D. 638 and a.d. 656, when Quiricus had been 
bishop for some years. (Esp. Sag. xxix. 133; 
Tejada y Ramiro, Col. de Can. de fa Igl. Esp. ii. 
322, 348.) [F. D.j 

OLBIANUS, a bishop, whose martyrdom by 
fire in the reign of Maximian for refusing to 
sacrifice to Juno, is commemorated in the Basilian 
Menohgy, May 4 and 29. In one place the see 
is Anea, and the persecutor is the hegemon 
Julius ; in the other Aelianus, hegemon of Asia, 
persecutes. In the Menologium Orascorum, 
May 29, the imperial reign is the same, the 
consuls are Alexander and Maximus, the prae- 
sides Julius and Aelianus. A sunaxary given 
by Boll. Acta US. 29 Mai. vi. 101, twice men- 


tions the name. Under 4 Mai. i. 458, Henschen 
quotes all the Greek sources, including the 
Menaea for May 29. He makes Olbianus the 
Latin Ulpianus, and fixes Anea or Enea on the 
Carian coast opposite Samoa, under the metro- 
politan of Kphesus, in the province of Asia. 
(Cf. Le Quien, Or. Chr. i. 717). [C. H.} 


OLOMUNDUS (Olemcsdus), abbat of the 
monastery of St. John the Baptist, honourably 
mentioned by Alcuin in a letter to the monks 
(E,i. 217 Frob., al. 226). The monastery, also 
called Malaste, and subsequently Mons Olivus 
(Montolieu), was in the diocese of Carcassonne. 
Mabillon puts his death on Dec. 11, 827. (Gall. 
Chr. vi. 971, Instrum. 412; Mabillon, AnnaL 
t. ii. pp. 250, 251, 420, 517, ed. 1704.) 

[C. H.] 

OLOPUEN (Lo-PtnaO, first Nestorian bishop 
of Sighanfu in India, A.D. 636 to 699. (Le Quien, 
Or. C. ii. 1269.) [J. G.] 


GENIANUS, son of Sextus Anicius Probus 
and his wife Anicia Faltonia Proba, husband 
of Juliana and father of Demetrias (q. v.), was. 
consul, when still very young, with his brother 
Probinus in the year 395. He is described by 
Jerome (Ep. exxx. c. 3, ed. Vail.) as a pious 
son, a man worthy of love, a kind master, » 
courteous citizen. He took a distinguished 
part in the senate, but died while still young-, 
amid the grief of all Rome, not long before 
the city was sacked by Alaric (410). [W. H. F.j 

peror of the West. He was descended from the 
great Anician family. After the capture of Rome 
by the Vandals he withdrew to Constantinople. 
When Genseric released Eudoxia and Placidia, 
the widow and daughter of Valentinian 111., the 
latter was given in marriage to Olybrius (Eva- 
grius, H. E. ii. 7 in Migne, Patr. Or. lxxxvi. 2 r 
2517). Genseric employed this marriage as an 
excuse for continuing bis ravages, declaring he 
wished the empire should be conferred on the 
brother-in-law of his son Hunneric, who had 
married Placidia's sister (Priscus, p. 74). While 
living at Constantinople, according to the Fite S. 
Euthi/mii (in Cotelier's Eccl. Graec Monum. 
iv. 64), he wrote to Eudocia, the widow of 
Theodosius II. and the grandmother of his wife, 
urging her to abandon the Eutycbian heresy, 
which she appears to hare done [Eudocia (4)3- 
He also with his wife built a church dedicated 
to St. Euphemia. In A.D. 472, Olybrius was 
sent by the emperor Leo to Rome, where civrl 
war was raging between the emperor Anthemius 
and his son-in-law count Ricimer. There he- 
was proclaimed emperor by Ricimer and his 
party, according to the Chron. Patch, (in Patr. 
(Jr. xcii. 820), against his will. Rome fell after 
a five months' siege, in which the inhabitants 
suffered grievously from famine, and Anthemius 
was murdered by Gundobad, Ricimer'* nephew, 
in the church of St. Chrysogonus, where he hod 
taken refuge. (Joan. Ant. 209, in Muiler, Frag. 
Hist. Gr. iv. 617.) Olybrius survived his rival 
only about three months, dying at Rome of 
dropsy on October 23, about seven months after 

Digitized by 



lie assumed th« Imperial title (Cassiodorus, 
Ckromcon in Patr. Lat. lxix. 1246). The only 
recorded act of his reign is his creating Gundo- 
bad a patrician. He left one daughter, Juliana 
(9) Ahicia. " [F. D.] 

OLYBBIUS (3), presbyter, addressed by 
Kiln* (lib. ii. ep. 191. in Pat. Qr. lxxix.). 


OLYMPIANUS. [Olympius.] 

OLYMPIANUS (Olympics), governor of 
Cappadocia, addressed as an excellent judge and 
most eloquent orator by Gregory Nnzianzen 
(Ep. 234 al. 165), who asks him to return a 
volume containing Aristotle's epistles. [C. H.] 

OliYMPIAS (IX the elder, queen of Armenia. 
She was the daughter of Ablavius, the famous 
pretorian prefect in Constantine's reign, and 
was betrothed to his son, the emperor Constans. 
Constanc after her father's execution took care 
of her as long as he lived and brought her up 
as if she had been his wife, but apparently the 
marriage never actually took place. In A.D. 
360, ten years after the death of Constans, his 
brother Constantius gave her in marriage to 
Arsaces III., king of Armenia. (Ammian. xx. 11 ; 
St. Athanasius, Hist. Arianorum ad Monachos. 
§ 69, in Patr. Or. xxv. 776.) Baronius (A. E. 
Ann. 388, xlir.) supposes that on the death of 
Arsaces, c. 369, Olympias may have married 
Anysius Secundns, becoming by him the mother 
of Olympias the deaconess, the subject of the 
following article; bnt the supposition seems 
untenable (Tillem. xi. 416). [F. 0.] 

OLYMPIAS (2), the younger, widow, a 
celebrated deaconess of the church of Con- 
stantinople, the moat eminent in all respects 
of the band of holy and high-born women 
whom Chrysostom gathered round him. The 
family to which Olympias belonged was one 
of high rank, bat pagan. Her birth is placed 
by Tillemont in or about 368, a.d. Her father, 
Seleucus, a count of the empire, died young, and 
her mother being also dead, Olympias was left 
at an early age the orphan heiress of a fortune 
of immense magnitude. Happily for Olympias 
her nncle Procopius, under whose guardianship 
she was placed, was a man of high character, an 
intimate friend and correspondent of Gregory 
Xazianzen. She was equally fortunate in her 
instructress, Theodosia, the sister of St Amphi- 
lochiua of Iconium, whom Gregory desired the 
young girl to set before her constantly as a 
pattern of Christian excellence both in word and 
deed. During Gregory's residence at Constanti- 
nople, 379-381, he became much attached to 
the bright and beautiful maiden, then probably 
about twelve years old, calling her " his own 
Olympias," and delighted to be called "father" 
by her. (Greg. Naz. Ep. 57 ; Cann. 57, pp. 
132, 134.) Olympias had many suitors. The 
one selected as her husband by her guardian, 
Procopius, was Nebridius, a young man of high 
rank and excellent character, to whom she was 
married in 384 [Nebridius]. From Olympiad's 
own words, as reported by Palladius, her inti- 
mate friend, concerning the happiness of being 
freed from the heavy yoke of matrimony, and 
from service, SovKttas, to a husband whom she 



found it impossible to please, ph twapivrir avSpl 
ipfVaj, there can be little doubt that her married 
life was not a happy one (Pa)lad. Dial. p. 164). 
In less than two years Olympias was left a widow 
without children. She regarded this early 
bereavement as a declaration of the Divine will 
that she was unsuited to the married life, and 
ought not again to be united to a husband. But 
it was by no means in accordance with the will 
of the emperor that one whose fortune was a 
prize to be coveted even by men of the highest 
rank should remain a widow. Theodosius marked 
her out as wife to a young Spaniard, a kinsman 
of his own, named Elpidius. Enamoured at once of 
the person and fortune of the fair young widow 
Elpidius sought her hand with the utmost im- 
portunity. But Olympias steadily refused to 
listen to his suit, not from any expressed dislike 
to her suitor, but from her fixed determination 
not again to entangle herself with the cares of 
a married life. Theodosius, indignant at her 
opposition to his will, and resolved that she 
should not enjoy the wealth she refused to share 
with his kinsman, commissioned the prefect of 
the city to take the whole of Olympias's pro- 
perty into public custody, and retain it until 
she had attained her thirtieth year. The impe- 
rial orders were carried out with so much 
harshness at the instigation of her lover, who 
hoped thereby to drive her to accept him for her 
husband, that she was even forbidden to go to 
church for her devotions, or to enjoy the con- 
genial society of the leading ecclesiastics. Olym- 
pias's only reply to this act of unfeeling despot- 
ism was a letter of dignified sarcasm, in which 
she thanked Theodosius for having so graciously 
relieved her from the heavy burden of the ad- 
ministration of her property, and told him that 
he would increase ber debt of gratitude if he 
would desire her fortune to be distributed among 
the poor, and towards the support of churches. 
She had long since renounced the empty glory 
of making any such distribntion herself, lest she 
should thereby lose the true riches of the soul. 
The lady's quiet irony stung the honest soldier to 
the quick. Ashamed of his unworthy tyrannical 
behaviour, on his return from the campaign 
against Haximus, Theodosius revoked his order, 
and restored to her the management of her 
estates (Pallad. pp. 164, 165). Thenceforward 
Olympias devoted herself and her wealth entirely 
to the service of religion. Renouncing not 
luxuries only, bnt the ordinary comforts and even 
the decencies of life, she practised the greatest 
austerities, denying herself both food and sleep, 
abstaining from the bath, and wearing none 
but coarse and worn-out apparel. Her whole 
time and strength were given to ministering to 
the wants of the poor and sick, and to the hos- 
pitable entertainment of bishops and other 
ecclesiastics, visiting the imperial city, who 
never left her roof without large pecuniary aid, 
sometimes in the form of a farm or an estate, 
towards the religious works on which they were 
engaged. Among others Palladius enumerates 
Amphilochius, Optimus (whose eyes she closed 
on his death-bed), the two brothers of Basil, 
Gregory Nyssen (who dedicated to her the Com- 
mentary on a portion of the Song of Solomon, 
which he had written at her request (Greg. 
Myss. in Cant. torn. i. p. 468) and Peter, and 
Epiphanius of Cyprus as well as the three who 

Digitized by 




signalized themselves subsequently as the un- 
wearied persecutors of Chrysostom, and- even of 
Olympias herself, Acacius,Atticus and Severianus. 
Palladins also asserts that Theophilus, the first 
author of the cabal against Chrysostom, when 
seeking some gilt from her, with feigned humility 
prostrated himself before Olympias and kissed 
her knees, on which the holy woman, ashamed 
to behold a bishop assuming such an attitude, 
threw herself with tears at his feet. Palladins 
also tells us that when Theophilus found that 
Olympias, acting under Chrysostom's advice, 
dismissed him with petty gilts and pre- 
sents of eatables, his disappointment vented 
itself in virulent abnse of his benefactress 
(Pallad. Dial. 151, 155). Her house was the 
common home of the clergy, as well as of the 
monks and virgins who swarmed from all 
parts of the Christian world to Constantinople. 
It is unnecessary to state that Olympias was the 
victim of much imposition, and that her charity 
was grievously abused. Indeed, her liberality 
was so unrestricted and inconsiderate that Chry- 
sostom interposed bis authority to limit it, re- 
presenting to her that her wealth was a trust 
to her from God, and that she was bound to use 
it in the most prudent manner for the relief of 
the necessities of the poor and destitute, not in 
making presents to the opulent and covetous 
<Soz. H. E. viii. 9). Olympias followed Chry- 
■ostom's advice, which brought upon her the 
illwill of those who, like Theophilus, had pre- 
viously made a market of her lavish generosity. 
But so far from resenting these disagreeable 
results of his wise counsels, Olympias only mani- 
fested increased devotion to Chrysostom, ex- 
hibiting a woman's tender care for his bodily 
wants, of which he was entirely negligent. She 
made arrangements for his being supplied with 
food suitable to his enfeebled stomach, at proper 
intervals, and prevented his abstinences being 
too prolonged (Pallad. p. 165). 

When she was still under thirty years of age 
Olympias was appointed by Nectarius deaconess 
of the church of Constantinople. Tbe courtly 
old prelate consulted her on ecclesiastical matters, 
in which he was a novice, and was guided by 
her advice (Pallad. p. 166 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 9). 
As has been already intimated, Olympias re- 
tained her position as deaconess under Chry- 
sostom, to whom she became the chief counsellor, 
and his active agent in all works of piety and 
charity, not only in Constantinople, but in dis- 
tant provinces of the church. 

On the arrival of the Nitrian monks, known 
as the Tall Brothers, in Constantinople in 401, 
Olympias received the refugees hospitably, and 
lodged them for some time at her own house 
(Pallad. p. 153), careless of the indignant remon- 
strances of Theophilus, who charged her with 
shewing favour to the enemies of the truth (ibid. 
p. 155). On Chrysostom's final expulsion from 
Constantinople, June 20, 404, Olympias took 
the chief place in the band of courageous women 
who assembled in the baptistery of the church 
to take a last farewell of their deeply loved 
bishop and friend, and to receive his parting 
benediction and commands (Aid. 89, 90). The 
suspicion of having been instrumental in the 
conflagration of the cathedral which immediately 
followed the departure of Chrysostom from its 
walls, attached to Olympias in common with the 


other Indies who had shared the bishop's friend- 
ship. Olympias was brought before the prefect 
Optatns, and subjected to a brutally severe ex- 
amination. No question being made of the fact, 
it was bluntly demanded of her why she had 
set the church on fire. The calm courage and 
piercing irony of her replies foiled the prefect. 
He proposed that on condition of her entering 
into communion with Arsacius, as some other 
ladies had done, the investigation should be 
dropped, and that she should be freed from further 
annoyance. Olympiad's proud spirit indignantly- 
rejected the ' base compromise. A charge had 
been publicly brought against her which could 
not be substantiated and of which her whole 
manner of life, which the prefect could not be 
ignorant of, was a sufficient refutation. Before 
she even considered the terms proposed she mast 
be cleared of the accusation as openly as she had 
been calumniated. Force would be unavailing 
to compel her to hold communion with those 
whom conscience and trne religion forbad her to 
recognise. Her request that she might have a 
short respite for the purpose of consultation with 
her legal advisers as to the proper means of dis- 
proving the calumnious accusations was granted 
(Soz. hist. Eccles. viii. 24). The severe conflict 
Olympias had sustained brought on a severe and 
almost fatal illness, wpibs (V^dro* ivamis, in 
the latter part of tbe year, the intelligence of 
which caused much distress to Chrysostom in 
his banishment (Chrys. Ep. vi. p. 580 a). On 
the recovery of her health, in the spring of 405, 
she left Constantinople, whether voluntarily or 
by compulsion is uncertain. Sozonien seems to 
speak of a voluntary retirement to Cyzicus. But 
the language of Chrysostom (Ep. 16, p. 603 c.) 
le.ids us to believe that she was never allowed to 
remain long in one spot, her persecutors hoping 
that by perpetually hurrying her from one place 
to another (toVous Ik rdmey i/uifitty, koX viv- 
roBtv iKaivtoHai), and exposing her to the rude 
treatment of soldiers and other public officials 
this noble woman's spirit might be broken, and 
that she might be induced to yield. This hope 
being frustrated Olympias was once again sum- 
moned before Optatus, who, on her renewed 
refusal to communicate with Arsacius, imposed 
on her tbe heavy fine of 200 pounds of gold. 
(Soz. H. E. viii. 24; Pallad. p. 28). This fine 
was Teadily paid, and the intelligence of Olym- 
piad's heroic disregard of all worldly losses and 
sufferings endured for the truth's sake was a 
source of intense joy to Chrysostom in his banish- 
ment. He wrote congratulating Olympias on 
the victory she had achieved, for which he calls 
upon her to glorify the living God who had 
enabled her to acquire such great spiritual gain. 
(Chry. Ep. 16, p. 604 a). We know nothing 
very definitely of the remainder of Olympias'a 
life, nor can we say certainly when it terminated. 
We may safely dismiss the later legendary 
tales of the credulous Nicephorus (H. E. xiii. 
24), who states that she was finally banished to 
Nicomedia, where she suffered many trials and 
persecutions and ended her days. Our only 
trustworthy source of information is contained 
in the letters addressed to her by Chrysostom from 
his banishment, seventeen in number, some 
swelling to the balk of long religioas tracts, 
the composition of which relieved the tedium of 
his exile and made him almost forget his mise- 

Digitized by 



ties. We gather from them that Olympias was 
subject to frequent and severe attacks of sick- 
ness, and that the persecution of the party of 
Arsacins and Atticns was violent and unsparing. 
The compulsory dispersion of the society of 
young females of which she was the head, and 
who had copied her resolution in refusing to 
hold communion with the intruding bishops, 
was a great sorrow to her (Chrys. Ep. 4, 
p. 577 a). But the dates of these letters are 
uncertain, and it would be lost labour to seek 
to arrange the various references to Olympiad's 
circumstances in chronological order. The style 
in which Olympias is addressed in this corre- 
spondence is "at once respectful, affectionate 
and paternal " (Stephens, S. Chrysostom, p. 383), 
" but it exhibits a highly-wrought complimen- 
tary "tone, full of "bold and lavish praise"ofher 
■stay signal virtues which is " too widely remote 
from the mind and taste of our own times to 
be fairly estimated by us." We cannot conceive 
of a woman of any delicacy at the present time 
receiving such fulsome effusions without being 
grievously offended by them, and regarding the 
writer as a base and shameless flatterer. But 
the standard of honesty and of sensitiveness 
varies with the age, and it is unfair to measnre 
past generations by that of our own day. Besides 
the letters Chrysostom wrote for Olympias's 
consolation a special treatise on the theme that 
" No one is really injured except by himself,'' 
st< rhw iavrbv fiii doucovrra ob&tls waoa$\d}jf(u 
Urarrat (torn. iii. pp. 530-553) ; as well as one 
"to those who were offended by adversities" — 
s-pej tow aKartakiadirrat twl rats eWquepfau 
rats ytyonivais (iM. pp. 555-612). To both of 
these reference is made in his fourth letter to 
Olympias (Ep. 4. p. 576, c.). The date of 
the death of Olympias cannot be determined. 
She was evidently living when Palladius pub- 
lished his Dialogue in 408 A.D., but was no 
longer alive when the Lansiac History was pub- 
lished in 420 A.D. Olympias is commemorated 
hi the Latin church on the 17th of December, 
and in the Greek church oa the 25th of July. 
(Palladia*, Diahfus Hittoricus ; Chrysostom, 
Epistolae, 1-17 ; Sozomen, H. E. viii. 24 ; Tille- 
mont, Mtm. Ecct. vol. xi. ; Stephens, St. Chry- 
sostom; Thierry, St. Jean, Chrysostome. [E. V J 

OLYMPIODOBUS (1), historian of the 5th 
century. He wrote a work in twenty-two 
books on the history of the empire under Hono- 
ring from A.D. 407-425, which has been pre- 
served for us in an abridgment by Pbotius (Cod. 
80), and included in Niebahr's edition of the 
Byzantine Historians. He covertly attacks the 
Christians, and especially Olympius, who is so 
warmly praised by St Augustine. [Olym- 
pics (10).] He was a pagan. Hierocles dedi- 
cated to him his work on Prudence and Fate. 
See for a fuller account his life in Dict. Gb. 
amd Rom. Bioo. ; and Care, i. 468. [G. T. S.] 

OLYMPIODOBUS (8). Various philoso- 
phers of this name lived at Alexandria during 
the Christian period. One was the teacher of 
Proclos [PboCLCB]. Another was the last philo- 
sopher of any celebrity in the Neo-Platonic 
school of Alexandria. He lived in the first half 
«sf the 6th century under the emperor Justinian. 



A third was a disciple of Aristotle, who taught 
his philosophy at Alexandria about A.D. 565 
after the Neo-Platonic school had become extinct 
A fourth of this name was a follower of Plato 
and a correspondent of Isidorus of Pelusium in 
the 5th century. See the Dict. Or. and Rom. 
Biog. for a full account of tbem. [O. T. 8.] 

OLYMPIODOBUS (8), a deacon of Alex- 
andria, who lived in the early years of the 6th 
century, having been ordained by the patriarch 
John HI. surnamed Niciot* [Joannes (13)]. He 
wrote commentaries on Job, Ezra, Nehcmiah and 
Ecclesiastes (cf. Migne's Pat. Grate, t. xciii. 
col. 9-470). For an account of the controversy 
about him and other works attributed to him, 
especially a treatise on the state of the soul 
separated from the body, see Ceillier, xii. 912, 
913. Cf. the account of him in the Dict. Gr. and 
£om. Biog. and in Fabric. Bib. Grace, ed. Harles, 
i. 67.) [G. T. S.] 

OLYMPIODOBUS (4), an eparch addressed 
by Nilus about the adornment of a church he 
is about to erect (lib. iv. ep. 61); another person 
who admired Plato, but neglected bis precepts, 
addressed by Isidore of Pelusium (lib. ii. ep. 256) ; 
Isidore shews him how the arguments of the 
pagans recoil on themselves (iv. 27, 186). 

[C. H.] 

OLYMPIUS (1), a bishop, sent to Africa on 
a mission of enquiry in company with Eunomius. 
[Eusomius (2).] [H. W. P.] 

OLYMPIUS (2), bishop of Hadrianople in 
Pisidia. He opposed the views of Origen about 
the resurrection of the body. He is mentioned 
in the Scholia of St. Maximus on Dionys. Areop. 
Fcclcsiast. Hicrarch. cap. vii. (Le Quien, Orient 
Christ, i. 1049.) [G. T. S.] 

OLYMPIUS (8), bishop of Aeni in Thrace, 
expelled from his see by the Arian party along 
with Theodulus bishop of Trajanopous (Athanas. 
Apol. de Fug. § 3, Bist. Arian. § 19 ; Le Quien, 
Or. Chr. i. 1201). [C. H.] 

OLYMPIUS (i\ a Spanish bishop, according 
to some of Barcelona, according to others of 
Toledo, but of what see is not certainly known. 
St. Augustine speaks of him more than once as 
a man of high reputation in the church, rank- 
ing him with Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Ambrose, 
and quotes with approval a passage from a theo- 
logical treatise of his concerning original sin, 
which does not now exist. A bishop Olympius 
was present at the council of Toledo, A.D. 4tK). 
(Aug. c. Jul. 1, 3, 8; 2, 10, 83; 8, 17, 33; 
Gennadius,«V Fir. iff. c. 23; Hardouin, i. 992; 
Baronius, v. p. 279 ; Cave, i. 415.) [H. W. P.] 

OLYMPIUS (6), a wealthy layman of 
Neocaesarea, an intimate and trusted friend 
and correspondent of Basil's. After the publica- 
tion of the calumnies of Eustathius Basil wrote 
to Olympius (c. 373, A.D.) telling him bow deeply 
he had been wounded by them, and begging him 
not to give any credence to them, or to suspect 
him of agreeing with Apollinaris. During his 
retirement Basil wrote Olympius other short 
letters, complaining of his writing so seldom 
(Ep. 12 [171], 13 [172]), and rallying him for 

Digitized by 




chasing away the poverty which had been his 
home-companion and the helper of hii studies 
by his generous gifts (Ep. 4 [169]). In a.d. 
375, when the people of Neocaesarea were load- 
ing Basil with insult and ridicnle, he wrote to 
Olympius to thank him for his friendly letter, 
and still more for the sight of his sons who had 
conveyed it, whose company had cheered him 
and made him forget his trials. He had written 
some letters to the people of Neocaesarea to 
exculpate himself and to warn them of the 
dangers of their line of conduct, and would 
write again if any good was likely to come of 
it. (Ep. 211 [170]; 63 [207]; 64 [210].) 

OLYMPIUS (6), a solitary of Antioch, a 
friend of Gregory Nyssen, at whose desire he 
wrote the life of his sister Macrina (Greg. Nyss. 
Vit. Macr. pp. 177, 178). Olympius's request 
that he would give him some rules for attaining 
Christian perfection was also the cause of 
Gregory's writing his treatise De Perfcctume, 
in which he proposes Christ Himself as the only 
model of the perfect life. {Ibid. p. 275, ed. 
Migne, vol. Hi. 251-286.) [E. V.] 

OLYMPIUS (7), governor of Cappadocia 
Secunda in the year 382, for whom Gregory 
Nazianzen entertained a high esteem, and whose 
Christian virtues, as well as the manner in 
which he fulfilled the duties of his office, he 
takesevery occasion of extolling highly. Olympius 
on his side shewed an equally affectionate reve- 
rence for Gregory, to whom he offered many 
thoughtful attentions especially valuable to one 
enfeebled by old age and sickness, which Gregory 
gratefully commemorates. Fourteen letters 
written by Gregory to him are still extant. 
The greater part of these are petitions in behalf 
of persons who had either some favour to ask 
from the governor, or some punishment to 
deprecate, fho number of these is an evidence 
of Gregory's influence over Olympius, and of 
the readiness with which his requests were 
granted. He writes on behalf of Aurelius, a 
deserter (Ep. 78) ; of Leon tins, a presbyter who 
had been deposed for his offences, and was in 
danger of punishment {Ep. 175) ; of a kinsman 
of his own, Eustratius (Ep. 177); of Paulus 
{Ep. 173); of the citizens of Caesarea, who had 
committed some grievous offence, for which the 
governor had threatened to rase the city to the 
ground (Ep. 49) ; of his niece's husband Nicobu- 
lus, who wished to exchange his place as post- 
master for some lighter and more agreeable 
office (Epp. 178, 179); of Philumena, a childless 
widow (Ep. 174) ; of Verianus' daughter, whom 
her father was desiring against her own will to 
divorce from her husband (Epp. 176, 211). 
In another letter Gregory excuses himself for 
neglecting the emperor's commands conveyed by 
Olympius to attend the Council at Constantinople 
in 382, on account of age and weakness, and 
requests Olympius to act as his mediator, recall- 
ing the fact, that the same cause had hindered 
him from paying his respects to him on entering 
on his office (Ep. 76); on his retirement from 
which he writes a grateful and highly pane- 
gyrical letter (Ep. 50). The only angry letter 
in the whole series is one in which he calls upon 
Olympius to use his authority as governor to 
punish the Apollinarian party at Natiamus, 


who had taken advantage of Gregory's being at 
the warm baths to elect a bishop of their owl 
and get him consecrated (Ep. 77). The corre- 
spondence otherwise gives a very pleasing picture 
of the relations between Gregory and the pro- 
vincial governor. [E. V.} 

OLYMPIUS (8), (Olympos), heathen philo- 
sopher at Alexandria, c A.D. 389, said by Vale- 
sius to have come from Cilicia. When the 
Alexandrians rose in tumult against the Chris- 
tians and the imperial authority, at the destruc- 
tion of the temple of Bacchus, and held that of 
Serapis as a fortress, Olympius encouraged the 
idolaters in their revolt, by assuring them that 
they should prefer death to the neglect of their 
ancestral gods, and that the destruction of the 
statues in the temple was no warrant for for* 
saking the worship, as the statues were perish- 
able materials, but the gods, therein worshipped, 
had only removed to heaven. This was the 
philosophical view of all idol-worship, when the 
heathen were pressed by the Christian argument. 
When Tbeodosius issued an edict favourable to 
the Christians, and inviting the pagans to 
Christianity and peace, and when Olympius saw 
that the temple of Serapis was about to be 
surrendered, he fled to Italy, but explained his. 
flight by saying that he had heard a voice in 
the Serapion singing, Alleluia. Sozomen (H. E. 
vii. c. 15) is the only authority for the story 
of Olympius; .but Ruffinus and other authors 
describe the destruction of the temples at Alex- 
andria (Baronius, Annal. A.D. 389, cc. 76 sq. ; 
Fleury, H. E. xix. cc. 28, 29 ; Tiliemont, Hist. 
des Emp. v. 136 sq. ed. 1732.) [J. G.] 

OLYMPIUS (9), the name of various 
persons addressed by Nilus ; a scholasticua 
(lib. i. epp. 152, 153), monk (ii. 77), a bishop, 
(ii. 190), a quaestor (ii. 305, 306). [C. H.J 

OLYMPIUS (10), a native of a province on 
the borders of the Euxine Sea, who by the favour 
of Honorius held an important military cont- 
mand in the imperial palace. He professed to 
be a Christian, but in the opinion of Znsimus, 
whose evidence must perhaps be taken with 
some qualification, his profession was only a 
mask to conceal depravity. It was he who in- 
formed Honorius, on his way from Bologna to 
Pavia, of the ambitious designs of Stilicho, Hay 
408, and having ingratiated himself with, 
the soldiers there by visiting the sick in the 
military hospitals, made use of the opportunity 
to influence their minds against him. When, 
after the mutiny at Pavia, Stilicho went to Ra- 
venna, it was again Olympius who obtained an 
order from Honorius that he should be arrested. 
He took refuge in a Christian church, but having; 
left his asylum under a promise of safety, he- 
was again seized and put to death by Heraclian. 
Olympius succeeded to his post of master of the 
offices, and devoted himself to the task of de- 
stroying or persecuting all the friends of Stilicho. 
Eucherius, his son, escaped for a time by taking 
refuge in a church at Rome, but was afterwards 
overtaken and put to death. Deuterius, im- 
perial chamberlain (praepositus cubiculi), and 
Peter, tribune or chief of the notaries (primi- 
cerius nota riorum), having refused to acknowledge 
for themselves any complicity with Stilicho, or 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


to inform against others, were beaten almost to 
death with clubs. When Alaric was on the 
point of entering Italy, and was threatening 
Rome, it was owing to Olympius that Honorius, 
reiving, says Zosimus scornfully, on the prayers 
ef his minister, refused at the same time both 
the powerful military aid of Sarus and his bar- 
barians to repel the enemy, and the moderate 
demands which were then made by Alaric on 
behalf of peace ; and when, after raising the 
blockade of Rome, Alaric allowed the senate 
to send commissioners to Ravenna to obtain the 
consent of Honorius to the terms proposed by 
him, it was Olympius who persuaded his weak 
master to refuse them, and to send back the 
commissioners under an escort only numerous 
enough to provoke destruction. One of the very 
few who escaped, Valens, the commander, 
reached Rome in safety, and was able to counter- 
act in some degree the cruel system of confisca- 
tion promoted by Olympius towards all the 
friends of Stilicho. He succeeded in gaining 
with the Hunnish auxiliaries a trifling success 
over the invading Goths, but his ascendency 
was soon to come to an end, for being denounced 
by the eunuchs to the emperor as the cause of the 
public disasters, he was dismissed from his office, 
and, fearing for his safety, left Ravenna, and fled to 
Dalmatia, a.d. 409. According to Olympiodorus, 
he returned and was again displaced a second 
and third time, and then, after being deprived 
of his ears, was beaten to death with clubs by 
aider of Constantius, the husband of Placidia. 
(Zoa, v. 32—16 ; Olympiod. ap. Photinm, liibl. 
80, p. 57 ; Hokobtos, Vol HI. pp. 144, 147.) 
These details, which belong more to general 
than to special church history, are nevertheless 
important in this latter respect so far as they 
bear witness to the character of Olympius in 
his relation to St. Augustine, from whom two 
letters addressed to him are extant, both of them 
expressing warm admiration and friendship, and 
belief in the sincerity of his Christian professions. 
The first of them was written soon after his pro- 
motion to the post of master of the offices, on 
which it congratulates him, but with the hope 
and belief that he will not be unduly elated 
thereby. Its purpose is to request his kind 
interference on behalf of Boniface bishop 
of Cataqua in Nuraidia, who was in trouble as 
to the possession of some land purchased by 
Paul, hia predecessor, under fraudulent condi- 
tions. At a time when he was deeply in debt to 
the imperial treasury, Paul made a surrender of 
his property, but reserving privately a certain 
portion, which he placed on bond in the hands 
of a person at that time in high office, possibly 
as Tillemont suggests, Bathanarius, brother-in- 
law of Stilicho, to be laid out in buying by 
auction some land, nominally on behalf of the 
church, but really to provide himself with a 
maintenance, and made an arrangement with the 
nominal purchaser that, without paying the 
debt due to the treasury, he should not be mo- 
lested by the tax-gatherer. When Paul died, 
Boniface succeeded in dne course to the pro- 
perty as bishop, and, as belonging to the church, 
might have held it without disturbance, but had 
scruples of conscience aa to his right of enjoy- 
ment; and though he might probably have 
obtained this securely by simply petitioning the 
•mperor to remit the small amount of payment 



which had become due since the purchase, he 
preferred to lay the whole case before him, being 
ready to abandon the property rather than enjoy 
it clandestinely. To his application on this 
point no answer had been received, and Augus- 
tine wrote to Olympius, as his friend, and in his 
opinion a sincere Christian, to request him to 
intercede on behalf of this small boon, suggesting 
that Olympius might perhaps arrange the matter 
by obtaining a grant of the land to himself, and 
that he, in his Christian piety, should bestow it 
upon the church (Ep. 96). The success of this 
letter may perhaps be inferred from a second, 
which Augustine wrote to Olympius soon after- 
wards on another matter. The bishops of Pro- 
consular Africa were much disturbed by the 
unruly behaviour both of idolaters and of 
heretics (Donatists), after the death of Stilicho 
[Evodios (3), Nectarius (5)], and sent a depu- 
tation to the emperor, to request that the laws 
against the disturbers of peace and of religion 
should be put in force. Augustine had not seen 
the members of this deputation, but took advan- 
tage of a presbyter from M ileum passing through 
Hippo on his way to Rome, though it was now 
winter time, to send a letter by him to Olympius, 
pressing the matter on his attention (Ep. 97). 
Edicts for the (repression of Donatists and other 
sectaries were issued at various times from 
a.d. 405 to 407, during the lifetime of Stilicho 
{Cod. Theodos. xvi. 5, 38-41). Stilicho was 
murdered in August, 408, and the decree of 
Honorius to Olympius, master of the offices, 
and Valens, forbidding pagans from being em- 
ployed in military service within the palace, is 
dated Nov. 14 in the same year (ib. 42). Suc- 
cessive edicts against Donatists and others ap- 
peared on Nov. 15, 24, and 27, a.d. 408, and one 
on Jan. 16, 409, which last may perhaps re- 
present the result of this appeal (CW. Theod. 
xvi. 5, 43-46). The point at issue is the extent 
of St. Augustine's knowledge of the true cha- 
racter of Olympius. According to Zosimus, a 
bitter opponent of Christianity, his religious 
profession was nothing but a cloak for his ini- 
quity. According to Olympiodorus, whose de- 
scription consists of a few epithets, his behaviour 
towards Stilicho was " murderous and inhuman," 
and if any credit at all is to be given to the 
narrative of Zosimus, his unrelenting persecu- 
tion of the friends of Stilicho after his death 
appears to justify this character. In the opinion 
of Baronius and Tillemont, the favourable men- 
tion of him by St. Augustine outweighs any un- 
favourable judgment on the part of Zosimus, 
but there is no evidence to shew that Augustine 
had any personal acquaintance with him ; and 
while, as both Baronius and Tillemont remark, 
some deduction must be made from the opinion 
of Zosimus, who never misses an ill-word against 
Christians, some allowance on the other side is 
also due on the ground (1) of the exaggerated 
complimentary phraseology of the day, attri- 
buting to Olympius in any case a higher rank of 
merit than he probably deserved, and (2) of the 
very natural, though not entirely excusable, 
warmth of expression on Augustine's part to- 
wards a man undoubtedly a Christian by pro- 
fession, probably up to that time in outward 
appearance sincere, and now appointed to a high 
office in the place of one whose Christianity was 
at the best doubtful, and who, whatever the 

Digitized by 




demerit* of hie opponents may have been, was 
undoubtedly guilty of ambitious designs against 
the existing government, which Olympius had 
succeeded in defeating. St. Augustine may have 
pitched too highly the praises of his friend, 
without a full knowledge of his character, but 
we can hardly believe that he was aware of that 
serious defect in it which a historian with strong 
antipathies, as was the case with Zosimus, pro- 
fesses to point out. (Baronius, Ann. Ecol. vol. 
v. A.D. 408, p. 316-323 ; Tillemont, MOn. vol. 
13, 174, 175 ; Gibbon, chap. xxx. xxxi. ; Diet, of 
O.aniR. Biog. vol. Hi. p. 913.) [H. W. P.] 

OLYMPIUS (11), addressed by Firmus 
(J^p. 27, in Pat. Gr. lxxvU.). [C. H.] 

OLYMPIUS (IS), the name of various 
persons addressed by Isidore of Pelusium ; a 
count (lib. i. epp. 377, 378), a deacon (ii. 24), a 
presbyter and scholasticus (iv. 205), a presbyter 
(v. 105) ; others (v. 387, 477). [C. H.] 

OLYMPIUS (18) I., bishop of Constantia, 
capital of the island of Cyprus, who took part 
in the " Robbers' Synod " in A.D. 449 (Labbe, 
ir. 117). He was one of the fifty-eight bishops, 
chiefly metropolitans, to whom in A.D. 457 the 
emperor Leo addressed his circular letter relative 
to the decrees of Chalcelon and the troubles 
caused in Egypt by Timothy Aelurus. (7b. 891.) 

[E. V.] 

OLYMPIUS (14) II. (Olympiahcs), arch- 
bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, in the reign of 
Justinian. Through the influence of the em- 
press Theodora, who was a Cypriote, he obtained 
the emperor's leave to enforce the decrees of 
Chalcedon in his diocese. He also completed 
what his predecessor Artemion had begun, 
the ecclesiastical freedom of Cyprus from the 
patriarchate of Antioch (Etienne de Lusignan, 
Deter, de Plsle de Cypr. p. 59 ; Le Quien, Or. 
Chr. ii. 1048). [C. H.] 

OLYMPIUS (16), bishop of Theodosiopolis 
and Evaza, was present at the council of Chal- 
cedon, A.D. 451, and signed the decrees. When 
Bassianns was tried by the conncil for intruding 
into the see of Ephesns [Bassianos], Olympius 
was called upon to explain his own part in the 
transaction, and shewed that he had gone to 
take his share in what was to be a canonical 
action, and was then forced by popular tumult 
into the enthronization of Bassianns. The 
council appears to have acquitted him of blame. 
(Mansi, Cone. vi. vii. per Cone. Chalc, Actio xi. ; 
Binius, Cone. ii. pt. i. 127 sq. ; Le Quien, Or. 
Chr. ii. 981 ; Fleury, H. E. xxviii. 26 ; Tille- 
mont, Hist. Eccl. xv. 460 sq., ed. 1732.) [J. G.j 

OLYMPIUS (16), a deacon of the church of 
Antioch, by whom, together with Marianus, a 
presbyter of the same church, Maximus of 
Antioch had written to Leo the Great, and by 
whom he sent his reply, dated Jane 10th, 453. 
(Leon. Magn. Ep. 119 [92].) [E. V.] 

OLYMPIUS (17),a messenger from Anatolius 
of Constantinople to Leo the Great. (Leonis 
Epp. civ. cap. 1. clviii.) [C. G.] 

OLYMPIUS (18), bishop of Scythopolia in 
Palestine, from A.D.452 to 466. He was succeeded 


by Cosmas. (Cotelerius, Monum. Graec. Ecdea. 
t. ii. num. 103, p. 286 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ. 
iii. 689.) [G. T. S.] 

OLYMPIUS (19), an Arian who died sud- 
denly in the public baths of the empress Helens, 
at Constantinople, in the year 498. He is said 
by several writers to have been struck by an 
angel when blaspheming the orthodox doctrine 
of the Trinity. The angel destroyed him by 
fire or boiling water, though he was in the cold 
bath at the time. The emperor Anastasius 
ordered a picture of the miracle to be painted. 
John of Damascus in Orat. 3, de Imag. tells 
the story ont of Theod. Lect. lib. ir. (Cf. Victor 
Tunnun. Chronic. A.D. 498 ; Ceill. xi. 103.) 

[G. T. S.] 

OLYMPIUS (20), exarch of Ravenna, sent 
by the Emperor Constans, c. 649, to enforce ac- 
ceptance of the Type in Italy. For his dealings 
with pope Martin I., see Martincs (3), vol. iii. 
854. He died c. 652, in an expedition to Sicily 
against the Saracens, of a pestilence that 
ravaged his army {Lib. Pont. Vita Martini, in 
Migne, Patr. Lot. exxviii. 739). [F. D.] 

OLYMPIUS (21), a guard sent by the emperor 
Constat] tinus IV. to arrest pope Martin for his 
rejection of the Type. He is said to hare at- 
tempted the assassination of the pope. His con- 
duct on this occasion is, however, involved in 
much obscurity. [CoNSTANTiKtjs IV.; Mar- 
TlKDS (3) in t. iii. p. 854.] [G. T. S.] 

OMAR, the second of the caliphs and one of 
the numerous fathers-in-law of Mahomet. He 
was one of Mahomet's three chief companions, 
upon whom the government and organization of 
his followers devolved on the death of the Pro- 
phet. He was forty-five years old when that 
event occurred a.d. 632. He succeeded to the 
caliphate in August 634. It doss not fall 
within the range of this dictionary to trace his 
career as bead of the new movement. This has 
been amply and clearly done in Muir's Annals of 
the Early Caliphate. We can only note his 
attitude towards Christianity. Under the rnlo 
of Omar, Syria, Palestine and Egypt fell into 
Mahometan hands. [Coptic Church.] Jerusa- 
lem was besieged for two years, and only suc- 
cumbed when Sophronius, the patriarch, inter- 
vened and agreed to surrender the city if Omar 
himself would come in person to receive its 
capitulation. No caliph had hitherto stirred 
beyond the boundaries of Arabia, but Omar did 
not care about precedents when a useful object 
was to be attained. He at once set out for 
Jerusalem, received its formal surrender, and 
was shewn over the celebrated sights and holy 
places by the patriarch himself He proved 
himself a very tolerant conqueror, imposing only 
a light tribute upon the Christians, and in some 
cases even endowing Christian institutions and 
prayiug in Christian churches, as at Bethlehem 
in the church of the Nativity. Whilo visiting 
the holy places of Jerusalem the patriarch is 
said to have shewn Omar a stone venerated as 
Jacob's pillar. It was covered with filth and 
ciay; so the caliph with a humility which 
always characterized him, at once applied him- 
self to clean the sacred spot with his own hands, 
and laid there the foundations of the mosque of 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 

OMEB, 8T. 

Omar which still exists. Humility indeed and 
toleration for Jews and Christinas were marked 
features of bis character. He hated all kinds 
of display. On one occasion he was making a 
journey into Palestine, and was entering a 
Christian settlement near the head of the gulf 
•f Acaba. He knew the people would be rush- 
ing in crowds to see him, so he changed places 
with his camel driver, and when the crowds 
came demanding where the caliph was, he 
simply replied, " He is before you," whereupon 
they rushed on, thinking he was in advance. 
Meanwhile, Omar had time quietly to reach the 
Christian bishop's house, where he tarried 
during the heat of the day. He had torn his 
coat on the journey, and he gave it to the 
bishop to have it repaired. The bishop not only 
mended the rent, but prepared a new coat as a 
present, which, however, Omar refused, prefer- 
ring his old garment. He was an enemy of all 
kinds of luxury, ostentation and vice among the 
Mahometans, and strove to carry out rigor- 
ously the discipline and precepts of the Prophet. 
The conquest of Antioch and Damascus was a 
great trial for Mahometan discipline. Wine 
was a great temptation to the true believers. 
At Damascus an immense number were accused 
of drinking it. So large was the number that 
the governor became alarmed and consulted 
Omar as to his course of conduct. His stern 
reply was this, " Gather an assembly and bring 
them forth. Then ask, Is wine lawful or is it 
forbidden ? * If they say forbidden, lav eighty 
•tripes on each. If they say it is lawful, behead 
them every one." Three great Mahometan 
arrangements are ascribed to Omar. (1) He 
arranged and committed to writing the Coran 
*Uch was previously preserved by oral tradi- 
tion merely. (2) He established the Mahome- 
tan era of the Hegira or Flight of Mahomet, 
beginning with the new moon of the first month 
ia the year of the prophet's flight from Mecca. 
(3.) To him is also ascribed the code called the 
- Ordinance of Omar " which to this day is the 
formal law regulating the condition of Jews and 
Christians in Mahometan lands. Muir thinks 
that Omar was not its author, as he was too 
tolerant and too friendly to Christians to have 
devised it. The emperor Heraclius and Omar 
had some kindly and courteous communications 
notwithstanding their frequent wars. [Hera- 
clics.] Theophanes {Chrtmographia) gives us 
some information about Omar. Muir's book is 
the best modern authority. Gibbon, in his fifty- 
tin* chapter gives a good account of Omar and 
the conquest of Jerusalem. [G. T. S.j 

OMEB, ST. [Audok arcs.] 

OMMATIUS (1), senior, a man of rank in 
Amvergne, whose daughter Iberia was the wife 
•f Buricius the elder, bishop of Limoges. 
Sidonius mentions him in his epithalamium to 
Koricias and Iberia (carm. 10, 11), and addresses 
to him carm. 17, which is an invitation to a 
family birth-day fete. Through Iberia he was 
the grandfather of Oumatiob (2), bishop of 
Tours. [C H-] 

OMMATIUS (2) (Ommacius, Omacicb), 
junior, grandson of the preceding, son of 
Koricias and Iberia, addressed and mentioned 



by Ruricius (lib. i. ep. 18; ii. 27, 56, and notes, 
Pat. Lat. lriii). He is regarded as the Ommatiua 
described by Gregory of Tours as the 12th bishop 
of Tours, a man of senatorial family in Auvorgnc, 
and of large estates, which he bequeathed to the 
churches of those towns where they were 
situated. At Tours he heightened the church 
of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, beneath and 
adjoining the walls, and commenced, but did not 
live to complete, the basilica of St. Mary beneath 
the wall. He died after an episcopate of either 
three or four years and five months, and was 
buried in the basilica of St. Martin at Tours. 
The Gall. Chr. gives him the alternative name 
of Martius, and from the Chronicle of Tours puts 
his accession to the see in 521 (Greg. Tur. 
H. F. iii. 17, x. 31 ; Bouquet, ii. 387 note; Gall. 
Chr. xiv. 17). [C. H.] 

OMOLINGC, OMULUNG. [Homoltooh.] 

OMOTARIUS, bishop of Laon late in the 
seventh century {QaU. Chr. ix. 512). [C. H.] 

ONASUS, of Segesta, an opponent of Jerome 
in Rome (anno 384). He had taken some of 
Jerome's satirical descriptions as personal to 
himself. Jerome writes a jeering and unseemly 
letter about him to Marcella {Ep. 40, ed. Vail.), 
plaviug upon his name as derived from tvos or 
from Nasus. [W. H. F.] 

OKCHTJ (Ohchojj, Oxchuo), Mac-in-Eccis 
(son of the poet), poet in Connaught in 
the middle of the 6th century, embraced the 
Christian faith and settled at Clonmore, co. 
Cnrlow or Wexford ; he set himself to gather 
relics of all the Irish saints into one shrine. 
His feast is Feb. 8, where Colgan {Acta SS. 
276-7) and 0*Hanlon {Ir. SS. ii. 402 sq.) have 
memoirs. [J. G.] 

ONESICRATIA, n lady, a correspondent 
of Chrysostom's, to whom he wrote, from 
Citcusus, a letter of consolation on the death 
of her daughter, which had speedily followed 
some previous bereavement. (Chrys. Ep. 192.) 


ONESIMUS (1), bishop of Ephesus, sent by 
the Ephesian church to meet Ignatius at Smyrna 
on his way to Rome. (I gnat, ad Eph. 2 ; see also 
Euseb. iii. 35.) ' [G. S.] 

puted husband of Flavia Domitilla, daughter of 
Clement the martyr, and grandniece of Domitian. 
The name of Tit. Flav. Onesimus appears on two 
inscriptions in Gruter {Corp. Ins. pp. ccxlv. and 
eclii.), one being a monument erected by him to 
his wife. The whole question about the Domi- 
tillas is in a state of confusion which these in- 
scriptions increase since tradition represents the 
younger Domitilla as living a virgin. [G. T. S.] 

ONESIMUS (3) a correspondent of Meuto 
ofSardis. See Vol. HI. p. 896 a. [G. S-l 

ONESIMUS (4), ST., bishop of Soissons, 
said to have destroyed the remains of idolatry 
in that region {Gall. Chr. ix. 334). The Bol- 
landists {Acta SS. 13 Mai. iii. 204) give a Vibt 
of him with notes by Henschen, who assigns 
him to the year c 360. [C. H.] 

Digitized by 




ONESIMUS (5), bishop of Nieomedia in 
Bithynia in latter part of the 4th century. 
(Le Quien, Or. Christ, i. 587 ; Philostorg. H. E. 
i. T.) [G. T. S.] 

ONESIMUS (6), one of those who at the 
Council of the Oak bore testimony against 
Chrysostom or urged the council to come to a 
speedy decision. (Phot. lix. p. 60.) [E. V.] 

ONESIMUS (7), the name of two persons 
addressed by Nilus; a monk (lib. ii. ep. 84), a 
primate (ii. 177). [C. H.] 

ONESIPHOEUS, bishop of Iconium about 
A.D. 450. He was present at the general 
council of Chalcedon, and also at the Robber- 
synod of Ephesus, 449. He declared at Chalcedon 
that he had opposed the proceedings of Diosco- 
rus at Ephesus. (Hefele's Councils, — Clark's 
translation, iii. 254, 314 ; Mansi, vi. 827.) 

[G. T. S.] 

ONIAS, a pupil (under a fancy name, and 
not otherwise known) of Alcuin {Epp. 124, 183, 
ed. Frob.), who addresses him as a sacerdoa c 
A.D. 800 (Epp. 230, 231, 227, 228) ; he is also 
one of those to whom Alcuin addressed his work 
on Ecclesiastes, A.D. 802. [CANDIDTTS (16).] 
(Alcuin, Opp. i. 148, 292,410, in Pat. Lat. t. c.) 

[R. J. K.] 

ONOEL. [Hebdomas, Vol. IL 850, o.] 

ONUPHBIUS (1) (Onofiuo, Honofrio), 
June 12, an Egyptian solitary, who left the 
monks of the Thebaid, with whom he had been 
brought up, for the remoter solitude of n spot 
named Calidonna. Here he lived in a cave for 
seventy years, cheered by the annual visits of a 
holy man, when the anchoret Paphnutius in his 
journeyings discovered him, having more the 
appearance of a wild beast than of a man. As 
Onuphrius was narrating the story of his life an 
extreme pallor was observed to spread over his 
face, and he intimated that his end was near and 
that his visitor wonld bury him ; then blessing 
Paphnutius and committing his spirit to God he 
expired. Paphnutius wrapped the body in a 
portion of his own cloak and laid it in a crevice 
of the rock. (Kosweyd, Fit. Pat. p. 99 ; Boll. 
Acta SS. 12 Jun. ii. 527 ; Tillem. x. 49, 723.) 
Mrs. Jameson {Legend. Art, ii. 280) describes a 
picture in the Louvre of which Onuphrius is the 
subject. [R. J. K.] 

ONUPHRIUS (2) (HONOPHKIU8), a soli- 
tary of Emesa in Phoenicia, by whose prayers 
Lencippe, the wife of Clitophon, is said to have 
been relieved of her barrenness upon her for- 
saking paganism, and to have become the 
mother of St. Galacteon. (Rosweyd, Vit. Pat. 
p. 99 ; Surins, De Prob. SS. Hist. iv. 158.) 

[R. J. K.] 

OPHELIUS (1), a grammaticus addressed 
by Isidore of Pelusium (lib. i. Epp. 11, 86, 
ii. 42, 55, 119, 255, 273, iii. 31, 70, 92, 93, 94, 
iv. 105, 162, 200); (2) a scholasticus (ii. 154, 
201). [C.H.] 

OPHELLUS. [Ofeixus.] 

OPHIANITAE, heretics, in the list of 
Sophronius (Mansi, xi. 850 D). In Hardouin's 
- rersion they appear as 'KQovnal and Aphonitae 
"Hard. ui. 1291 A> [C. H.] 


OPHITES ['O^iovof, Clem. Alex., Or!;.; 
'Octroi, Hippol., Epiph.] Among the peculiari- 
ties of several of the Gnostic sects of the 2nd 
century, there was one which was felt by mem- 
bers of the church as most striking and most 
offensive, namely, that the symbol of the serpent, 
which to Christians generally represented the 
source of all evil and the enemy of the human 
race, was by these heretics held in reverence and 
honour. Accordingly, though "Gnostics" was 
the title which these people claimed for them- 
selves (Hippol. Rtf. v. 1, 11), the Catholics 
called them Ophites, or else, in places where it 
was the Hebrew word for serpent, Nahash, 
whichappeared in their mythologies, Naassenes; 
and ultimately some of themselves took pride in 
those titles. It is so natural to regard as most 
fundamental that characteristic which gives the 
name to a sect, that it is useful to remember 
that this name Ophite seems to have been at 
first imposed from without, and that the cha- 
racteristic from which it is derived was common 
to many of the Gnostic sects, and in most of 
them was not entitled to be counted their most 
prominent feature. 

The honour paid to the serpent in these 
sects may be traced to a twofold origin. Gnostic 
speculation busied itself much with the problem 
of the origin of evil, and the favourite solution 
was that evil was inherent in matter. It fol- 
lowed that the God of the Jews to) whom the 
Old Testament ascribes the creation of matter 
had therein done a bad work, and therefore that 
he could not be identical with the Supreme 
Good God. When the Old Testament went on to 
relate how the serpent had offered to teach our 
first parents knowledge and to make them wise, 
and how the Creator God had cursed them for 
embracing this offer, it was a consistent theory 
to maintain, that in this the serpent had shewn 
himself to be the friend of the human race, and 
the Creator its enemy. We seem thus to hare s 
sufficient account of the use of the serpent as an 
emblem of wisdom, and of the honour paid it by 
those who held it to be a point of duty to run 
counter to the God of the Je ws. Butin truth vene- 
ration of the serpent appears to be of earlierdate 
than opposition to Judaism. We cannot pretend 
to trace the history of the totems or animal 
symbols which different tribes regarded a* 
peculiarly their own: bat there is sufficient 
evidence that in the countries where Gnosticism 
most flourished, a heathen use of the serpent 
emblem had previously existed. Sanchoniathon, 
quoted by busebius, in a chapter containing 
several notices of ancient serpent worship 
(JPraep. Evan. i. 10), tells of the honour paid the 
serpent by the Phoenicians. They admired the 
quickness of its motions though destitute of the 
instruments of locomotion employed by other 
animals. They observed how, by casting it* 
skin it renewed its youth, and they not only 
ascribed to it great length and tenacity of life, 
but even fancied that except by violence from 
without it would never die. A religious use of 
the serpent emblem was common to the Phoeni- 
cians with the Egyptians. We may indeed iden- 
tify the names of the Phoenician Taaut and the 
Egyptian divinity Thoth, both of which are con- 
nected with serpent worship. The Egyptian* 
are said by the same authority to have derived 
from the Phoenicians the name agathodacnionr 

Digitized by 



which • later writer (Lamprid. Tit. Heliogah.) 
tells a* was given to the pet snakes which they 
kept. The serpent represented the vital prin- 
ciple of nature, the world being symbolized by a 
figure like the Greek theta, a circle with a soake 
in the middle. In the same chapter of Eusebius, 
Pherecydes Syrius is said to hare derived from 
the Phoenicians his representations of the god 
Ophioneus as serpent-formed; but as we know 
from Celsos (Origen, vi. 42) that Ophioneus was 
described as a Titan and an opponent of Kronos, 
Pherecydes would seem to have more in common 
with those who made the serpent typify the evil 
rather than the good principle. For the pur- 
poses of this article, however, it is needless to 
ascertain the details of ancient serpent worship ; 
H is enough to know in a general way that 
there was snch a thing, for then we can under- 
stand that among the eclectic speculators, included 
among those known by the name of Gnostics, who 
adopted only such elements of Christianity as 
harmonized with their system, there would be 
some whose previous training would indispose 
them to share that hostility to the serpent 
which was common to Christianity and Judaism, 
and who wonld be willing to give the emblem 
an honourable place in their schemes. Accord- 
ingly in one Gnostic system (Iren. I. xxz. 5), 
Nous, the source of intelligence, is serpent- 
formed ; in another (I. xxx. 14), Sophia herself is 
identified with the serpent. As members of the 
church were ingenious in finding the figure of 
the cross in different objects, natural or artificial, 
so these Gnostics were equally ingenious in dis- 
covering the figure of the serpent. By anyone 
who would lift up his eyes with intelligence it 
might be seen holding a presiding place among 
the constellations of heaven (Hippol. v. 16, p. 
134). It was to be seen in the form of the 
brain (Hippol. ir. 51, p. 91, v. 17, p. 137), and 
in the convolutions of the intestines (Iren. I. 
xxx. 14). It was the serpent who gave wise 
counsel to Eve, the serpent rod by which Moses 
wrought his miracles, the brazen serpent which 
gave deliverance to the perishing people in the 
wilderness, it was he in whose likeness the Son 
of Man was to be lifted up (Hippol. v. 18, 
p. 133) ; nay, the serpent was identified with 
the Logos Son. But perhaps even the wildest 
extravagance of Ophite theory was not so revolt- 
ing to Christians as a practice with some of 
these Gnostics to allow the tame snakes which 
we have already mentioned, to crawl about and 
sanctify their Eucharistic bread, thus, as it 
seemed from a Christian point of view, binding 
themselves to the author of evil by a sacrament 
of abomination (Hs.-Tert. 6; Epiph. Haer. xxxrii. 
5, p. 272). The story is repeated by Angustine 
{Haer. 17) and improved on by " Praedestine- 
tus"(i. 17). 

In what precedes we have collected the prin- 
cipal characteristics which justify the applica- 
tion of the name Ophite to these sects : but as 
we hare already intimated, the name has been 
applied to sects of different degrees of antiquity, 
and differing a good deal in their principles. It 
is advi-able therefore to state separately what 
we learn from different sources of information. 

The OiMtes of Irenaeus. — Irenaeus having 
given (1. xxiii.-xxriii.)in what seems intended for 
chronological order, a list of heresies, beginning 
with Simon and ending withTatian, adds in a kind 




of appendix a description of a rariety of Gm stie 
sects deriring their origin, as he maintains, 
from the heresy of Simon. Irenaeus does not 
use the name " Ophite," but Thcodoret, who 
copies his description, gives that title to them, 
and he has been followed by later writers. 
This system gave the following account of the 
origin of things. The first principle was a light 
dwelling in By thus, blessed and incorruptible, 
which these heretics called the Father of all and 
the First Man. His Thought or Conception 
became a Son, which they called the Second Man, 
and alter these was the Holy Spirit, which they 
called the First Woman, the mother of all living, 
the name for spirit in Shemitic languages being 
feminine. [On this trinity see Vol. II. p. 683.] 
Beneath lay, in a sluggish mass, the four ele- 
ments, viz. water, darkness, abyss, and chaos; 
while above these moved the Holy Spirit. And 
of her beauty both first and second Man became 
enamoured, and they generated from her a third 
male, an Incorruptible Light, called Christ. But 
the excess of light with which she had been 
impregnated was more than she could contain, 
and while Christ her right-hand birth was 
borne upward with his mother, forming with 
the First and Second Man the true holy church, 
a drop of light fell on the left hand downwards 
into the world of matter, and was called Sophia 
and Prunikos. By this arrival the still waters 
were set in motion, all things rushing to embrace 
the Light, and Prunikos wantonly playing with 
the waters, assumed to herself a body, with- 
out the protection of which the light was in 
danger of being completely absorbed by matter. 
Vet when oppressed by the grossness of her 
surroundings, she strove to escape the waters 
and ascend to her mother, the body weighed bet 
down, and she could do no more than arch 
herself above the waters, constituting thus the 
visible heaven. In process of time, however, 
by intensity of desire she was able to free her- 
self from the encumbrance of the body, and 
leaving it behind to ascend to the region imme- 
diately above, called in the language of another 
sect the middle region. Meanwhile a son, Ialda- 
baoth, born to her from her contact with the 
waters, haring in him a certain breath of the 
incorruptible light left him from his mother, by 
means of which he works, generates from the 
waters a son without any mother. And this son 
in like manner another, until there were seven 
in all, ruling the seven heavens, Ialdabaoth, 
lao, Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloaens, Oreus, Asta- 
phaeus; a Hebdomad which their mother com- 
pletes into an Ogdoad. [See the article Heb- 
domad, Vol. U. p. 850.1 But it came to pass 
that these sons strove for mastery with their 
father Ialdabaoth, whereat he suffered great 
affliction, and casting his despairing gaze on the 
dregs of matter below, he, through them, con- 
solidated bis longing and obtained a sou Ophio- 
morphus, the serpent-formed Nous, whence come 
the spirit and soul, and all things of this lower 
world ; but whence came also oblivion, wicked- 
ness, jealousy, envy, and death. Ialdabaoth, 
stretching himself over his upper heaven, had 
shut out from all below the knowledge that 
there was anything higher than himself, and 
being puffed up with pride at the sons whom he 
had begotten without help from his mother, he 
cried, 1 am Father and God, and above me 


Digitized by 




there is none other. On this his mother, hearing 
him, cried out, Do not lie, Ialdabaoth, for above 
thee is the father of all, the first man, and the 
son of man. When the heavenly powers mar- 
yelled at this voice, Ialdabaoth, to call off their 
attention, exclaimed, " Let us make man after oar 
image." Then the six powers formed a gigantic 
man, the mother Sophia having given assistance to 
the design, in order that by this means she might 
recover the Light-fluid from Ialdabaoth. For 
the man whom the six powers had formed, lay 
unable to raise itself, writhing like a worm 
until they brought it to their father, who 
breathed into it the breath of life, and so 
emptied himself of his power. But the 
man having now Thought and Conception (Nous 
and Enthymesis), forthwith gave thanks to the 
First Man, disregarding those who had made him. 

At this Ialdabaoth, being jealous, planned to 
despoil the man by means of a woman, and formed 
Eve, of whose beauty the six powers being ena- 
moured generated sons from her, namely, the 
angels. Then Sophia devised by means of the 
serpent to seduce Eve and Adam to transgress 
the precept of Ialdabaoth ; and Eve, accepting 
the advice of one who seemed a Son of God, 
persuaded Adam also to eat of the forbidden 
tree. And when they ate they gained know- 
ledge of the power whioh is over all, and re- 
volted from those who had made them. There- 
upon Ialdabaoth cast Adam and Eve out of 
Paradise ; but the mother had seoretly emptied 
them of the Light-fluid in order that it might 
net share the curse or reproach. So they were 
«ast down into this world, as was also the ser- 
pent who had been detected in working against 
his father. He brought the angels here under 
his power, and himself generated six sons, a 
counterpart of the Hebdomad of which his 
father was a member. These seven demons 
always oppose and thwart the human race on 
whose account their father was cast down. 

Adam and Eve at first had light and clear 
and, as it were, spiritual bodies, whioh on their 
fall became dull and gross ; and their spirits 
were also languid because they had lost all but 
-the breath of this lower world which their maker 
had breathed into them ; until Prunikos taking 
pity on them gave them back the sweet odour 
of the Light-fluid through which they woke to 
a knowledge of themselves and knew that 
they were naked. The story proceeds to give 
a version of Old Testament history, in which 
Ialdabaoth Is represented as making a series of 
efforts to obtain exclusive adoration for himself, 
and to avenge himself on those who refused to 
pay it, while he is counteracted by Prunikos, 
who strives to enlighten mankind as to the 
existence of higher powers more deserving of 
adoration. In particular the prophets who (as 
explained Vol. II. p. 850) were each the organ of 
one of the Hebdomad, the glorification of whom 
was their main theme, were nevertheless inspired 
by Sophia to make fragmentary revelations about 
the First Man and about Christ above, whose 
descent also she caused to be predicted. 

And here we come to the version given of New 
Testament history in this system. Sophia, 
having no rest either in heaven or on earth, 
implored the assistance of her mother, the First 
Woman. She, moved with pity at her daughter's 
repentance, begged of the First Man that Christ 


should be sent down to her assistance. Sophia, 
apprized of the coming help, announced his 
advent by John, prepared the baptism of re- 
pentance, and by means of her son, Ialdabaoth, 
got ready a woman to receive the annunciation 
from Christ, in order that when he came there 
might be a pure and clean vessel to receive 
him, namely Jesus, who, being born of a virgin 
by divine power, was wiser, purer, and more 
righteous than any other man. Christ then 
descended through the seven heavens, taking the 
form of the sons of each as he came down, and 
depriving each of their rulers of his power. For 
wheresoever Christ came the Light-fluid rushed 
to him, and when he came into this world he 
first united himself with his sister Sophia, and 
they refreshed one another as bridegroom and 
bride, and the two united descended into Jesus, 
who thus became Jesus Christ. Then he began 
to work miracles, and to announce the unknown 
Father, and to declare himself manifestly the 
son of the First Man. Then Ialdabaoth and the 
other princes of the Hebdomad, being angry, 
sought to have Jesus crucified, but Christ and 
Sophia did not share his passion, having with- 
drawn themselves into the incorruptible Aeon. 
But Christ did not forget Jesus, but sent a 
power which raised his body up, not indeed his 
choical body, for "flesh and blood cannot lay 
hold of the kingdom of God," bnt his animal 
and spiritual body. So it was that Jesus did no 
miracles, either before his baptism, when he was 
first united to Christ, or after his resurrection, 
when Christ had withdrawn himself from him. 
Jesus then remained on earth after his resurrec- 
tion eighteen months, at first himself not under- 
standing the whole truth, but enlightened by a 
revelation subsequently made him, which he 
taught to a chosen few of his disciples, and then 
was taken up to heaven. 

We need not doubt that the Gnostic doc- 
trine here expounded claimed to be derived 
from the revelation thus mode to the chosen 
few (see the article Plffrw SOPHIA, where 
an account is given of a later work of this 
school). The story proceeds to tell that Christ, 
sitting on the right hand of the father Ialda- 
baoth, without his knowledge efirlohes himself 
with the souls of those who had known him, 
inflicting a corresponding loss on Ialdabaoth. 
For as righteous souls instead of returning to 
him are united to Christ, Ialdabaoth is less and 
less able to bestow any of the Light-fluid on 
souls afterwards entering this world, and can 
only breathe into them his own animal breath. 
The consummation of all things will take place 
when, by successive union of righteous souls 
with Christ, the last drop • of the Light-fluid 
shall be recovered from this lower world. 

The system here expounded evidently implies 
a considerable knowledge of the Old Testament 
on the part either of its inventor or expounder. 
It begins with " the spirit of God moving on 
the face of the waters, and it summarises the 
subsequent history, even mentioning the sacred 
writers by name. Yet that it is not the work 
of one brought up in Judaism is evident from 
the hostility shewn to the God of the Jews, who 
is represented as a mixture of arrogance and 
ignoranoe, waging war against idolatry from mere 
love of self-exaltation, yet constantly thwarted 
and overcome by the skill of superior know* 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


ledge. We have already remarked that the 
feminise attributes ascribed to the Holy Spirit 
indicate that Greek was not the native lan- 
guage of the framer of this system, and 
this conclusion is confirmed by the absence 
of elements derived from Greek philosophic 
systems. If, for instance, we compare this 
system with that of Valentinns, we discover at 
once so much agreement in essential features as 
to assure us of the substantial identity of the 
foundation of the two systems ; but the Valen- 
tioian system contains several things derived 
from Greek philosophy, whereas that which we 
hare described can be explained from purely 
Oriental sources. We are entitled therefore to 
regard the latter as representing the more origi- 
nal form. The reporter of this system is clearly 
acqoainted with the Mew Testament, since he 
adopt* a phrase from the Epistle to the Corin- 
thians; he knows that our Lord habitually 
spoke of himself as Son of Han; and in deny- 
ing that onr Lord performed miracles before his 
baptism, he adopts the history as told in onr 
Gospels in opposition to that told in apocryphal 
Gospels of the Infancy. We have already re- 
marked (II. 683) that the place which the doc- 
trine of *> Trinity holds in this system indicates 
that it proceeds from one who had received 
Christian instruction. 

Although, following Theodoret, we have given 
the name Ophite to the system described by 
Irenaeus, it will have been seen that not only 
ooes the doctrine concerning the serpent form a 
nty subordinate part of the system, bnt also 
that the place it assigns the serpent is very 
<fcflereal from that given it by those whom we 
count as properly to be called Ophites. For this 
tame we think properly belongs to those who 
jare the serpent the place of honour in their 
trstem, bat the present system agrees with 
Christian doctrine in making the serpent and his 
attendant demons the enemy and persecutor of 
toe human race. If we were to single out what 
we regard as the most characteristic feature of 
the scheme, it is the prominence given to the 
attribute of light as the property of the good 
principle. This feature is still more striking in 
the derived system of Pistia Sophia, where the 
station of light is of perpetual occurrence, and 
the dignity of every being is measured by the 
Brilliancy of its light. It is natural to imagine 
a conmuoon with the system of Zoroaster, in 
waica. the history of the world is made to be a 
straggle between the kingdom of light and the 
kingdom °f darkness. This suspicion is con- 
fcrnted when we refer to what Plutarch tells 
of the. system of Zoroaster (fie Is. et Onr. 47), 
for we there find other coincidences with our 
system, which can scarcely be accidental. In the 
Persian system, the opposing powers, Ormnzd 
nd Ahriman, each generate six derived beings 
to aid in the contest, precisely in the same way 
that Ialdabaoth and Ophiouorphus have each 
the co-operation of six subordinate and derived 
beings. The story of Sophia stretching out her 
i-ody so as to form the visible heavens has a 
I«nllei in •• similar myth told about Ormuzd 
enlarging his bulk, and there is a likeness to 
Ophite doctrine m the account which Zoroaster 
gives of our resurrection bodies, which are to be 
w> dear and subtle as to cast no shadow, (See 
•al=« the Persian representations of seven heavens 



and an eighth region above them (Orig. Adv. Celt. 
ri. 22).) On the whole there seems good reason 
to believe that the Gnostic system described by 
Irenaeus is the work of a disciple of Zoroaster, 
half-converted to Christianity. As to his obliga- 
tions to previous Gnostic systems, see Sator- 
ninus. In the section of Irenaeus immediately 
preceding that of which we have just given an 
account, there is a summary of a system which 
has been called Barbeliot, from its use of the 
name Babiielo to denote the supreme female 
principle. It contains some of the essential 
features of the scheme just described, of which 
it seems to have been a development, principally 
characterized by a great wealth of nomenclature, 
and, with the exception of the name which has 
given a title to the system, all derived from the 
Greek language. Again, in the passage imme- 
diately following the chapter we hare analysed, 
Irenaeus shews acquaintance with a. section of 
the school who may be called Ophite in the 
proper sense of the word, some teaching that 
Sophia herself was the serpent, some glorifying 
Cain and other enemies of the God of the Old 
Testament See Cainites. 

The Ophites of Clement and Origen. — Clement 
of Alexandria incidentally mentions Cainites and 
Ophites {Strom, vii. 17, p. 900), bnt gives no 
explanation of their tenets. Nor do we suppose 
that there is any reason to connect with this 
sect his reprobation of the use of serpent orna- 
ments by women (Paed. ii. 13, p. 245). 

Origen is led to speak of the Ophites (Adv. 
Celt. vi. 28 sqq.) by an accusation of Celsus that 
the Christians counted seven heavens, and spoke 
of the Creator as an accursed divinity, inasmuch 
as he was worthy of execration for cursing the 
serpent who introduced the first human beings 
to the knowledge of good and evil. Origen 
replies that Celsus had mixed up matters, and 
had confounded with the Christians the Ophites, 
who so far from being Christians would not hear 
the name of Jesus, nor own him to have been so 
much as a wise and virtuous man, nor would 
admit anyone into their assembly until he had 
cursed Jesus. It may be doubted whether Origen 
has not here [been misinform edaboota sect of which 
he intimates that he knows but little. Accord- 
ing to all other authorities the Ophites claimed 
to be Christians. Elsewhere (Comm. in St. Matt. 
iii. 852) Origen classes the Ophites as heretics of 
the graver sort with the followers of Marcion, 
Valentinus, Basilides, and Apelles. The identity 
of the nomenclature proves that these Ophites 
of Origen are a branch of the Zoroastrian sect 
described by Irenaeus, and therefore justifies our 
application of the name Ophite to that sect. 
The names of the seven princes of the Hebdo- 
mad, as given by Origen, agree completely with 
the list of Irenaeus. Origen also gives the 
names of the seven demons. [See Hebdomad, 
Vol. II. p. 850.] Irenaeus only gives the name 
of their chief, but that one is enough to establish 
a more than accidental coincidence, since it U a 
name we should not have expected to find as 
the name of a demon, namely, Michael. The 
name Prunikos is also found in the report of 
Origen. Origen gives what must have been one 
of the valuable secrets of this sect, viz. the 
formula to be addressed by an ascending soul 
to each of the princes of the hebdomad in 
order to propitiate him to grant a passage 

Digitized by 




through his dominions. Perhaps the secret 
would hare been more jealously guarded if it 
were not that in addition to the use of the 
formula, it seems to hare been necessary to 
produce at each gate a certain symbol. These 
would only be in the possession of the initiated, 
and we may imagine that they were buried with 
them. We may note a point of which Origen does 
not seem tohave been himself aware, namely, that 
he gives the formulae in the inverse order ; i.e. 
first the formula to be nsed by a soul which has 
passed through the highest heaven and desires to 
enter the Ogdoad ; next the formula to be used 
in order to gain admission to the highest heaven, 
and so on. Origen also gives a description of an 
Ophite diagram, which Celsus likewise had met 
with, consisting of an outer circle, named 
Leviathan, denoting the soul of all things, with 
ten internal circles, variously coloured, the 
diagram containing also the figures and names 
of the seven demons. Matter (Hhtoire du Gnos- 
ticistne, II., p. 221 ; plate I. D.) attempts to re- 
produce the figure from Origen's description, but 
in truth Origen has not given us particulars 
enough to enable us to make a restoration with 
confidence, or even to enable us to understand 
what was intended to be represented. In all 
probability the picture was not intended to 
explain or illustrate anything, but merely was 
supposed to possess some magical virtue. Origen 
names Euphrates as the introducer of the doc- 
trine of the sect which he describes, whence we 
may conjecture [see Euphrates (1)] that the 
sect may have been that branch of the Ophites 
who are called Peratae. 

Tha Ophites of Hippolytus. — The method by 
which Lipsius has attempted to recover the lost 
earlier treatise of Hippolytus has been explained 
(Vol. III. p. 93). This treatise appears to have 
contained a section on the Ophites, following 
that on the Nicolaitans, with whom they were 
brought into connexion. Philaster has trans- 
posed this and two other sections, beginning his 
treatise on Heresies with the Ophites, and making 
the Ophites, Cainites, and Sethites pre-Christian 
sects. We may set this aside as a mere blunder, 
into which Philaster was led by the names. 
The section of Hippolytus appears to have given 
a condensed account of the mythological story 
told by Irenaeus. In giving the name Ophite, 
however, he appears to have brought into 
greater prominence than Irenaeus the charac- 
teristics of the sect indicated by the word, their 
honour of the serpent, whom they even preferred 
to Christ, their venerating him because he taught 
our first parents the knowledge of good and evil, 
their use of the references to the brazen serpent 
in the Old and New Testament, and their intro- 
duction of the serpent into their Eucharistic 

The great difference between the earlier and 
the later treatise of Hippolytus is that the former 
was a mere compilation, his account of the 
opinions of heresies being in the main derived 
from the lectures of Irenaeus ; but at the time 
of writing the latter, he had himself read seve- 
ral heretical writings, of which he gives an 
extract in his treatise. In this book he makes 
a contemptnous mention of the Ophites in com- 
pany with the Cainites and Nochaitae (viii. 20) 
as heretics whose doctrines did not deserve the 
compliment of serious exposition or refutation. 


And it is strange that he does not seem to sus- 
pect that these heretics have any connection 
with those who form the subject of hi* fifth 
book. In that book he treats of sects which 
paid honour to the serpent, giving to the first 
of these sects the name Naassenes, a title which 
he knows is derived from the Hebrew name for 
serpent. Possibly Hippolytus restricted the 
name Ophites to the sect described by Irenaeus, 
which has very little in common with that- 
which he calls Naassenes. Another identifica- 
tion which Hippolytus failed to make has also 
been overlooked by, as far as we know, alt his 
previous readers. The two first sections of the 
5th book treat of the Naassenes and the Peratae, 
and no doubt give an account of two distinct 
works which fell into the hands of Hippolytus, 
and which he supposed to represent the opi- 
nions of two distinct sects of heretics. But sv 
careful comparison of the two sections shews 
that both works must have reached Hippolytus 
from the same quarter, both having evidently 
proceeded from the same workshop. The doc- 
trines of the heretics of the two sections agree 
so completely that the statements of the one 
may be used to clear up obscurities in the state- 
ments of the other, several technical words are 
common to the two sections, and in both the 
same not very obvious illustrations are em- 
ployed. Before giving the detailed proof ot 
these assertions, it will be convenient to state 
the doctrines of each sect as described by Hip- 

The book of the sect which he calls Naassenes, 
a name not heard of elsewhere, professed to 
contain heads of discourses communicated by 
James, the Lord's brother, to Mariamne. A 
very interesting feature of the book seems to* 
have been the specimens it gave of Ophite hymu- 
ology. The doctrine has little in common 
with the Zoroastrion Ophites described by Ire- 
naeus, the contrast for instance between light 
and darkness not being once insisted on. The 
writer is in fact not Oriental, but Greek. He 
does indeed use the Hebrew words Noas and 
Caulacau, but (see Vols. I. 425, III. 589) these 
words had already passed into the common here- 
tical vocabulary so as to become known to many 
unacquainted with Hebrew. He does shew a 
knowledge of the religious mysteries of various, 
nations, yet as it appears to us not a persona), 
but a literary knowledge. For instance, he 
dilates much on the Phrygian rites, but the 
whole section seems to be but a commentary on 
a hymn to the Phrygian Attys which had fallen 
into his hands. It must be remembered that 
without ever leaving Rome there was oppor- 
tunity to become acquainted with the religions 
rites of various nations. 

The Naassenes so far agreed with other Ophites 
that they gave to the first principle the names 
Man and Son of Man, calling him in their 
hymns Adamas. Instead, however, of retaining 
the female principle of the Oriental Ophites, 
they represented their " Man " as bisexual ; and 
hence one of their hymns runs " From thee, 
father, through thee, mother, the two immortal 
names." See this also quoted under MoNOorus 
(Hippol. Jtef. viii. 12, p. 269). Compare also 
Irenaeus, i. 29, " refrigerant in hoc omnia hymni- 
zare magnum Aeona. Hinc antem dicunt mani- 
festatam Matrem, Patrem, Filium." Although 

Digitized by 



the coincidence here is bat slight, it deserves 
•am* attention, because Irenaens's section re- 
ferred to contains some Naassene technical words, 
Ananias, Autogenes, Tirginalis sptritns ; and these 
Barbeliots of irenaeus appear to have taught a 
Greek form of Ophite doctrine. To return to 
the Naassenes, they taught that their primary 
man was, like Geryon, threefold, containing in 
himself the three natures to votpiv, to i|>vxi- 
xir, to xoXxir ; and so that in Jesus the three 
aatnres were combined, and throngh him speak 
to these different classes of men. From the 
Uring waters which he supplies each absorbs 
that for which his nature has attraction. From 
the same water the olive can draw its oil, and 
the Tine its wine, and in like manner each other 
plant its special produce : chaff will be attracted 
by amber, iron only by the magnet, gold only 
or the prickle of the sea-hawk,* so each accord- 
ing to bis nature attracts and imbibes a different 
supply from the same source. Thus there are 
three classes of men and three corresponding 
churches, angelical, psychical, and choical, whose 
names are elect, called, captive. We should 
imagine that these indicate (1) the heathen chiefly 
captive under the dominion of matter. (2) ordinary 
Christiana, and (3) out of the many called, the 
few chosen members of the Naassene sect. Else- 
where, however, a greater diversity of men is 
indicated. For the Saviour, we are told, said, 
"Unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, 
ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven ; but 
even if ye drink the cup that I drink of, whither 
I go ye cannot come." For every one must go 
to his own nature. Therefore It was that he 
chose twelve apostles for the twelve tribes, and 
by them spoke to every tribe. So all men can- 
not receive the preaching of all the twelve, but 
each only according to his own nature. 

The Naassene work known to Hippolytus 
would seem to have been of what we may call a 
devotional character rather than a formal expo- 
sition of doctrine, and this perhaps is why it is 
difficult to draw from the accounts left us a 
thoroughly consistent scheme. Thus, as we 
proceed, we are led to think of the first principle 
of nature, not as a single threefold being, but as 
three distinct substances ; on the one hand the 
pre-existent, otherwise spoken of as the Good 
Being, on the other hand the *' outpoured Chaos," 
intermediate, between these one called Autogenes, 
aad also the Logos. Chaos is naturally desti- 
tute of forms or qualities ; neither does the pre- 
existent being himself possess form, for though 
the cause of everything that comes into being, 
it is Uself none of them, but only the seed from 
which they spring. The Logos is the mediator 
which draws forms from above and transfers 
them to the world below. Vet he seems to 
have a rival in this work ; for we have refer- 
ence made to a fourth being, whence or how 
brought into existence we are not told, a " fiery 
<3od," £saldaeus, k the father of the iSucot Kia/uts. 
That is to say, if we understand the theory 
rightly, it was this fiery being, the same who 



• *«<p«Is taXaaviov Upturn." I don't know what this 
**j Is. nor have I seen elsewhere this remarkable pro- 
perty of its bone. 

» Schneidewin unwarrantably edits Isldabaoth, the 

tact being that this system differs altogether In Its no- 

; tram that of the Zoroaetrlc Ophites. 

appeared to Hoses in the burning bush, who 
gave forms to the choical or purely material 
parts of nature. It is he who supplies tha 
fiery heat of generation by which these forms 
are still continued, in this work the Logos 
had no part, for " all things were made through 
him, and without him was made nothing." The 
" nothing " that was made without him is the 
Kiopat lSuc6t. On the other hand, it is the 
Logos, who is identified with the serpent, and 
this again with the principle of Water, who 
brings down the pneumatic and psychical ele- 
ments, so that through him man became a 
living soul. But he has now to do a greater 
work, namely, to provide for the release of the 
higher elements now enslaved under the domi- 
nion of matter, and for their restoration to the 
good God. For the restoration of the chosco 
seed an essential condition is the complete aban- 
donment of sexual intercourse. The captive 
people must pass out of Egypt; Egypt is the 
body, the Red Sea the work of generation ; to 
cross the Red Sea and pass into the wilderness 
is to arrive at a state where that work of gene- 
ration has been forsaken. Thus they arrive at 
the Jordan. This is the Logos through whose 
streams rolling downward forms had descended 
from above, and generations of mortal men had 
taken place ; but now Jesus, like bis Old Testa- 
ment namesake, rolls the stream upwards, and 
then takes plnce a generation not of men, but of 
gods, for to this name the new-born seed may 
lay claim (Ps. lxxxii. 6). But if they return to 
Egypt, that is to carnal intercourse, " they 
shall die like men." For that which is born 
from below is fleshly and mortal, that which is 
born from above is spiritual and immortal. 

The specimens already given present but a 
faint idea of the author's tyrannical method of 
Scripture exegesis by which he can prove any 
doctrine out of any text. One or two speci- 
mens more must suffice. In " aTxvpo&vrriy Kartp- 
ya(6iitni," which occurs ic St. Paul's description 
of the evil deeds of the Gentiles (Kom. i. 27), 
kaxnuoabeTi is explained to mean the formless- 
ness of the blessed pre-existent Being, r) aaxt- 
H&Turroi oiicla. Again, it ts explained that the 
publicans (rikSytu) who go first into the king- 
dom of God, are we upon whom the ends of the 
world (t« riXri r&v aliivur) have come. The 
writer, it will be seen, makes free use of the 
New Testament. He seems to have used all the 
four Gospels, but that of which be makes most 
use is St. John's. He quotes from Paul's 
epistles to the Romans, Corinthians (both letters), 
Galatians, and Ephesians. There is a copious 
use also of the Old Testament ; and besides we 
are told there is a use of the Gospel according to 
the Egyptians, and that of St. Thomas. But 
what most characterizes the document under 
consideration is the abundant use of heathen 
writings. For the author's method of exegesis 
enables him to find his system in Homer with as 
much ease as in the Bible. Great part of the 
extract given by Hippolytus is a commentary on 
a hymn to the Phrygian Attys, all the epithets 
applied to whom are shewn when etymologically 
examined, to be capable of a Naassene interpre- 
tation. One or two specimens of the etymology 
will suffice. Every temple, rait, shews by its 
title that it is intended for the honour of the 
serpent yias. Again, one of tha first of the titles 

Digitized by 





applied td Attys is rdttat,. Here* we are taught 
to recognise him who brought to rest (tVowre) 
all the disorderly motion that prevailed before 
his appearing. To him all things cry ravt, 
xoii«, riir Surofupavtcw. In like manner it is ex- 
plained that, in this hymn, ai*6\os does not mean 
a goatherd, nor iftiyta\ot an almond, but the 
reader will not care to be informed of the mys- 
teries which these words contain. This eiegesis 
can be paralleled by anyone who has chanced to 

■ meet some of the insane documents which in onr 
own days are issued from time to time by crazy 
persons who fancy themselves to be inspired, and 
who are able to find support for their preten- 
sions in texts of Scripture used with utter dis- 
regard of their context. According to our view 
the Naassene writer under consideration was a per- 
son of this kind, not a philosopbio writer, nor the 
originator of the Ophite system which he teaches, 
but one trained up in it, and proud to give new 
proofs and illustrations of it of his own discovery. 
Although the myths of the earlier Ophite sys- 
tem are but lightly touched on, there is some 
trace of an acquaintance with them, as for ex- 
ample the myth that the first created mnn lay 
crawling until a spirit was poured into him from 
above, and the story of the descent of Christ 
through the seven heavens on his mission to 
release the higher elements imprisoned in chaos. 

We turn now to the section which treats of 
the Peratae. It had been known from Clement of 
Alexandria that there was a sect of that name, 
though he tells nothing as to its tenets. Hippo- 
lytus was acquainted with more books of the sect 
than one. One called ol vpoiaTtiot appears to 
have been of an astrological character, treating 
of the influence of the stars upon the human 
race, and connecting various heathen mythologies 
with the planetary powers. For the astrology 
of the Naassene writer, see p. 102. But there 
was besides a treatise the resemblance of the 
doctrine of which to that previously described as 
Naassene we have already remarked. According 
to this, the world is one, but admits of a 
threefold division, Tor-rfp, vUt, 0Ai). Each of 
these parts contains in itself an infinity of 
powers. The first is perfect goodness, unbegot- 
ten, si^-yteVw* srorpiK-oV, the second is iyaOby 
abrtytvh; the third ytwtnrrty, ttueoy. Inter- 
mediate between Hyle and the father sits the 
Son, the Word, the Serpent, ever turning, now to 
the immovable father, now to the moving Hyle, 
drawing powers from the first by means of which 
Hyle, in itself destitute of properties or of form, 
is fashioned according to the ideas received from 
the father. These he draws in some ineffable 
manner, just as the various colours passed into 
the sheep from the rods which Jacob set up, or 
rather as a painter transfers forms to bis canvas 
without detracting aught from his model. 
When, then, the Saviour says, "Your Father 
which is in heaven," he means that heavenly 
father, the first principle, from which the forms 
have been derived ; but when he says " your 
father was a murderer from the beginning," he 
means the ruler and framer of Hyle, who, taking 
the forms transmitted by the Son, works gene- 

■ ration here, a work which is destruction and 

• The technical use of the word ^yeftw Is found also 
In the Naassene system, p. 10T. (See also the Valen- 
tlnlan fragment, Epiph. mux. 31, p. 168.) 

death. For the redemption of this world below, 
Christ was made to descend in the days of Herod, 
from the region of the unbegotten, a man him- 
self threefold, having in himself powers from the 
three parts of the world, " for in Him the whole 
Pleroma was pleased to dwell bodily,'' and in 
Him was the whole Godhead. His mission is m> 
order that those elements which descended from 
above may by him be enabled to return, while 
those elements which plotted against the higher 
ones shall be separated and left for punishment. 
Thus, then, when it is said " the Son of Man 
came not to destroy the world, but that the 
world through Him might be saved," by " the 
world " is meant the two superior parts, to> 
byfyyijTov and to auroyiwrfrov ; but when the- 
Scripture says "that we should not be con- 
demned with the world," by the world is meant, 
the third part or the mSffpor iSikiSj; for that 
part must be destroyed, but the two superior 
parts freed from destruction. When, then, 
the Saviour comes into the world, just as the- 
amber attracts the chaff, and the magnet the- 
iron, and the spine of the sea hawk the gold, so 
this serpent attracts to himself those whose- 
nature is such as to be capable of receiving his- 
influence. Snch persons are called Peratae. 
because, by means of their "knowledge" they 
have learned how safely to pass through 
(irepSffoi) the corruption to which everything; 
that is generated is subject. All the ignorant 
are Egyptians. Egypt is the body, coming out 
of Egypt is coming out of the body, and passing 
the Red Sea, that is the water of destruction ; or, 
in other words, generation. Those, however, 
who suppose themselves to have passed the Red 
Sea, are still liable to be assailed by the gods of 
destruction, whom Moses called the serpents ot 
the desert, who bite and destroy those who had 
hoped to escape the power of the gods of gene- 
ration. For these Moses exhibited the true and 
perfect serpent, on whom they who believed were- 
not bitten by the gods of destruction. X roll- 
out this true serpent, the perfect of the perfect, 
can save and deliver those who go out of Egypt, that 
is to say from the body and from the world. In the 
sketches here given we have by no means touched 
on all the coincidences between what Hippoly tus 
calls the Naassene and Peratic systems ; bnt we 
consider that enough has been told not only to 
shew that in both works the doctrines of the 
same sect are described, but also that there is a 
literary dependence of one work on the other. 
If the two had not the same author it seems to- 
us that the Peratic work is the elder, and that it 
was made use of by the writer who uses the name 

In close connection with these two sections 
ought to be considered what Hippolytus tells 
under the head Monoimcs. In the article with 
that title we have given an account of his 
system, and pointed out that be belongs to 
the Naassene sect. The extracts of Hippolytus. 
begin with a quotation from Homer — 

wxe avb? ytnofs n Mr ytvttris t* avepwiror 

used by the Naassene writer, pp. 105, 106. He 
quotes the Naassene hymn, " Father, mother, 
the two immortal names." He make* his 
supreme first principle to be "Man "and the 
" Son of Man." He quotes in exactly the tame 
form the text that "it pleased the whole pit- 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 




to dwell bodily in the Son of Man." He 
teaches the same ascetic doctrine, and describes 
the men outside hie sect as ttrot wipl rb yiy 
mtui rys (h)kttat del TtwXayriiiivou He finds 
mysteries in Moses' rod (compare p. 183). He 
employs the same vocabulary i$aat\eiras (pp. 
107, 113), fuxx l M (compare pp. 269, 110), yaipi- 
A/ijtarros col iivpi&rvfios (pp. 270, 117), (ivtiari 
iyu«tr, pp. 270, 115, &o. On the whole the 
evidence is conclusive that Monoimos was a 
teacher of this Peratic sect ; and apparently his 
work was used by the Naassene writer. 

Coincidences, not less numerous and less strik- 
ing;, are to be found between the Naassene 
extracts and other writings preserved by 
Hippolytus. Thus the "fiery god," of whose 
origin the Naassene gives no explanation, is to 
be found in the Docetic system (p. 265) ; and we 
may also compare the Docetic explanation of the 
parable of the sower (p. 263) with the Naassene 
(p. 113). Again, although the system of Justin us 
diners totally in character from the Naassene, 
being mythical rather than philosophical, yet 
there are some striking coincidences. For 
instance, both find their Good Being in the 
heathen use ef the phallic emblem crowned with 
fruits (pp. 102, 157), and there Justinus gives 
a derivation of the name Priapus quite in the 
style of the Naassene etymology. Again, there 
is much resemblance between the language in 
which both speak of the "water above the 
firmament (pp. 121, 158). The names Naas and 
Esaldaeus are common to the two writers. Both 
also endeavour to find their doctrines beneath 
the veil of heathen mythologies. Under the 
article Simon we shall mention some apparent 
instance* of the use in later systems of the work 
ascribed to that heretic. 

When we attempt from such coincidences as 
have been pointed out, to draw inferences as to 
the relations between tne systems in which they 
are found, there is an element of uncertainty 
arising from the fact, that these coincidences 
are between different documents known to us 
only through Hippolytus, and that we hare no 
evidence how these documents came into his 
hands, whether from one source or from several. 
Gnosticism was evidently in much less credit 
in his time than it had been in the days of tre- 
mens. The works which Irenaeus refutes were 
in open circulation, but in the time of Hippo- 
lytus the Gnostic sects were burrowing under- 
ground, and it is his pride to drag to light 
their secret documents, of which he was evi- 
dently an ardent collector. Now collectors are 
sometimes imposed on by dealers ; so that when 
we find Hippolytus possessed of books purport- 
ing to be by heretical teachers of whom we hear 
from no one else, we cannot quite refuse to put 
to ourselves the question, did such teachers ever 
exist, or is it not possible that a heretic who 
had got a good price from Hippolytus for one of 
his books, may have been tempted to compose 
others under different names, with no other 
object than to sell them to his orthodox cus- 
tomer. But since, notwithstanding many points 
of agreement, the documents reported as by 
Hippolytus differ so much among themselves as 
to make common authorship unlikely, we think 
their resemblances may be more probably ac- 
counted for by the hypothesis, that several 
reached Hippolytus from the same quarter. He 

might, for instance, have got hold of the library 
of the writer whom we nave called Naassene, 
and so have become possessed of the very books 
which had suggested his speculations. 

Besides the two sections already considered, 
the fifth book of Hippolytus contains sections on 
two other Ophite systems, that of the Sethians 
and of Justinus. The latter has been described 
under its proper head (Vol. HI., p. 587). It will 
be convenient to treat of the former here. 

The Sethians [iiBtavol, Hippol. ; i-qBua/oi, 
Epiph. ; Sethoitae, Ps.-Tcrt.]. The systems 
described by Hippolytus under this name in his 
earlier and in his later work appear to have 
been quite different. Seth seems to have played 
no part in the system of the latter book, which 
appears to hare been called Sethite only because 
contained in a book called the Paraphrase of 
Seth. It is very closely related to a myth told 
in the earlier treatise under the head of Nioolai- 
tans, but the Sethite story of the earlier treatise 
threw some of the commonplaces of Gnosticism 
into the form of a myth, of which Seth was the 
hero. This myth is to be found in Epiph. Haer. 
39 ; Philaster, 3 ; Ps.-Tert 8, the coincidences 
of language clearly shewing that all three 
writers drew from the same source. Another 
article of Epiphanius, on the Archontici (Haer. 
40) evidently treats of the same school, books of 
which seem to have become directly known to 
Epiphanius. Two of these, a greater and a 
lesser, were called Symphonia; a third was 
called "AAAo7€i<«?s, by which latter name the 
sons of Seth were denoted, some books being 
written in their name, and some in that of their 
father. The myth assumes the ordinary Gnostic 
principle, that it was only by inferior angels that 
the world was made. The myth went on to 
tell that two of these angels, by intercourse with 
Eve, became the fathers of Cain and Able re- 
spectively. Then arose strife between the angels, 
which resulted in the death of Abel by the hands 
of Cain. Then the mother (no doubt the same 
as the Sophia Prunikos of the other legends), in 
order to destroy the power of these angels, 
caused Seth to be born of Adam (and therefore 
of a " different race " from his elder brothers) 
and endowed him with a spark of power from 
above, to enable him to resist the angelic powers 
and to become the father of a pure seed. The 
purity of the race, however, becoming corrupted 
by intermarriages, the mother sent the deluge 
to sweep away the corrupt brood, but the angels 
defeated her design by introducing into the ark 
Ham, one of the race which she had wished to 
destroy. So the confusion of the world continued 
and there was a necessity for further interference 
by the descent of Christ, who according to some 
of these books was identical with Seth. The . 
angelic nomenclature of these books agi-ees (but 
for trifling variations) with that of the Irenaean 
Ophites. Thus it is Sabaoth, not Ialdabaoth, 
who is identified with the God of the Jews. 
The books told of Sethite prophets called Marti- 
ades and Marsianus, who were said to have 
ascended to heaven and apparently to have 
brought down revelations. 

The Sethite section of the later treatise of 
Hippolytus is of quite a different nature, and 
aims at being of a philosophic rather than a 
mythical character, yet, as we have said, it is 
the development of an older myth told by Epi- 

Digitized by 




phanius {Uaer. 25, p. 80), of so repulsive a 
character that we do not care to relate it at 
length. As told by Hippolytus it strongly pre- 
sents Zoroastrian features which are absent from 
the other sections of his fifth book, the opposi- 
tion between light and darkness being the main 
theme. These so-called Sethites, then, tench 
that there are three principles of the universe, 
each of those principles containing under it an 
infinity of powers. These principles are, above, 
light ; below, darkness ; and separating between 
them the spirit, which is to be understood not as 
:i wind perceptible to sense, but as a certain 
subtle fragrance. The light then pours its rays, 
the spirit sheds its fragrance, some of which fall 
upon the terrible waters of darkness, and these 
eagerly lay hold of the light and strive to 
detain it. From the concourse of these prin- 
ciples is generated a great womb, namely the 
seal or type of heaven and earth, which may be 
seen to have the form of a pregnant womb. In 
like manner, though the various powers included 
under the three principles are at rest when by 
themselves, yet when powers of different kinds 
come near each other they rush together, and 
from their concourse is formed a seal or type. 
In this way, from the concourse of the infinite 
variety of powers were formed the ideas of the 
different kinds of living creatures. The agent 
which gave these actual existence was a principle 
first born of the water, a rushing mighty wind, 
the cause of all generation, which is also de- 
scribed as a flying serpent. Through its means 
some of the light which fell on the darkness and 
some of the sweet savour of the spirit are bound 
in human bodies and cannot find release. Then, 
since the foul womb will admit no form but 
that of the serpent, the perfect word deceived it 
by assuming the like form and entering into the 
womb iu order to effect the release of the 
imprisoned elements. This is what is meant by 
the " form of a serpent," and by the " Word of 
God descending into a virgin's womb." By 
bringing the compounded elements within the 
reach of this more powerful attraction the com- 
pound is resolved. Like runs to like ; the Logos 
elements in man run to the perfect Logos " as 
chaff runs to amber, as iron runs to the magnet, 
as gold to the bone of the sea hawk." This 
resolution of compounds is what is referred to 
in the saying, "I come not to send peace on 
earth, but rather a sword." 

The appearance for the third time of the 
illustration * from the bone of the sea-hawk 
arrests attention and forces us to enquire 
whether, in spite of great apparent unlikeness, 
this Sethite system may not have affinities with 
the Naassene and Peratic systems previously 
described. We find that these heretics have 
no resemblance whatever to those elsewhere 
designated Sethites, and that they seem to hare 
been so called by Hippolytus merely because 
their doctrines were taught in a book bearing 
the name of Seth. The peculiar character of 
the book is accounted for when we gain inde- 
pendent knowledge that it is founded on a myth 
of the Zoroastrian school to which it attempts, 
with but poor success, to give a philosophic 

" Possibly this Illustration was found In the work of 
Simon, and was borrowed thence by later Gnostic 


character. But all the fundamental ideas an 
the same as in the previous sections of the 5th 
book. We have again the threefold division of 
the universe, the identification of the Logos 
with the serpent, the representation of the 
object of his mission as the leleasing of the 
elements imprisoned in matter. There is the 
same perverse system of Scripture exegesis ; and 
some sacramental rite of the sect seems to be 
referred to in what is insisted on in this, as in 
the other systems, that every one who wishes to 
put off the form of the serpent, and to put on 
the heavenlv garment, must wash and drink 
the cup of iiving water (p. 143 : compare p. 
158, pp. 100, 116, 121). 

Whatever opinion we form as to the author- 
ship of this Sethite document, the affinity of the 
sect with those previously described is unmis- 
takable. There is, however, far less room to 
doubt the affinity of the sect with those called 
DOCETAB (p. 262, sqq.). In a previous article 
we have noticed the singular discovery of a 
proof of the triplicity of nature from the three 
words ffKorot, yv6<t>os, BitWa (Deut. v. 22). 
We may here add the technical use of the words 
iWo, xapaKTifp, and the illustration drawn from 
the eye (pp. 139, 266). 

I have no doubt that if any one were to take 
the trouble to make a concordance to this work 
of Hippolytus, he would find many coincidences 
between things told of different sects, which 
escape one who has made no systematic search 
for them. On the whole the conclusion at 
which I arrive is, that we are to take the sec- 
tions in Hippolytus as representing not neces- 
sarily the teaching of different sects, but of 
different books with which he became acquainted. 
It is possible that these books may, as he sup- 
posed, have emanated from different sects; for 
the Gnostic sects had affinities between them- 
selves, of which, with our present information, 
we cannot pretend to give a historical account, 
many fundamental thoughta and many myths 
being common to sects which we must recognise si 
distinct. It is also possible that books which 
Hippolytus supposed to describe the doctrines 
of different heresies really emanated from the 
same sect, nay even may have had a common 
authorship. So much of what we are told by 
Hippolytus is peculiar to himself, and cannot be 
checked by other sources of information that it 
seems rash to be over-confident in choosing is 
what way the coincidences that hare been 
pointed out are to be accounted for. 

Ophite teaching was, aa we believe, dying out 
in the days of Hippolytus ; in the time of 
Epiphanius it was not absolutely extinct, but the 
notices in his work would lead us to think of it 
as but the eccentric doctrine of some stray 
heretic here and there, and not to have counted 
many adherents. In the 5th century Theodorrt 
tells (Haer, Fab. i. 24) of having found serpent 
worship practised in his diocese by people whom 
he calls Marcionites, but whom we may belieTe 
to have been really Ophites. But the most 
curious instance of the spread nnd survival of 
the notions of this sect is that Ophite teachers 
would seem to have penetrated to India (see 
Asiatic Researches, x. p. 40). [G. S.] 

OPILIO, deacon of the church of Venafrom, 
and Crescentius were accused of selling certain 

Digitized by 





of the ornaments of the church to a Jew, viz. 
two silver chalices, two coronae with the dolphins 
that supported them, the lilies from other 
coronae, and six large and seren small pallia. 
Gregory, in August 591, directs the sub-deacon 
Anthemius to inquire into the matter. (Epp. 1. 
«8.) [F. D.] 

OPILIUS, bishop of Ebusus (Ivica), attended 
the council of bishops assembled by Hunneric at 
Carthage in A.D. 484 (Notitia Africana, in 
Migne, Patr. Lot. lriii. 276). Ebusus, with the 
Balearic Islands, then belonged, both civilly and 
ecclesiastically, to the Province of Sardinia. 

[F. D.] 

OPINATORES (Opinabii, Opinantes), 
heretics so named from the Latin rendering of 
the word Aomrrai (Baron. A. E. ann. 191, ii). 
[Docetae.] [C. H.] 

OPPA, bishop of Tuy, signs thirty-third the 
canons of the 13th Council of Toledo, in A.D. 
683. His episcopate must have been short, as 
his predecessor signs the canons of the 12th, and 
his successor those o£ the 15th, Council of 
Toledo, in A.D. 681 and 688 (Tejado y Rxmiro, 
Col. da Can. de la Igl. Esp. ii. 481, 512). Florez 
(Esp. Say. xxii. 33) disproves the theory that he 
was the same person as the traitor Oppas. 

[K. D.] 

OPPAS, archbishop of Seville, son of king 
EaiCA, and brother of king Witiza, the last but 
one of the Gothic kings of Spain. He became 
archbishop shortly before hit brother's death. 
That he and his brother Sisebut, and his nephews, 
the sons of Witiza, headed a party hostile to 
Rodebic, and that the defeat of the latter by 
the Arabs, and the conquest of Spain, was mainly 
doe to their treason or treachery seems certain, 
but the details are wrapt in the obscurity in 
which all the events connected with the over- 
throw of the Goths are involved. According to 
one version (Sebastian, Chron. in Etp. Sag. xiii. 
478) they sent messengers to invite the invaders 
from Africa, and furnished them with ships 
Dozy (Recherches sur Vhittoirtde CEspigne, i. 74) 
disbelieves this story, at unsupported by Arabian 
sources, irom which he gives the following 
a- count. The family of Witiza had been ap- 
parently but not really reconciled to Roderic, 
and avenged themselves upon him by deserting 
him m the fatal battle. They supposed that the 
expedition of Taric, like that of his predecessor 
Tarif, was a mere descent for plunder, and that 
on his departure they would be able to regain 
the throne, and indeed Mousa, when he despatched 
his lieutenant, had no designs of permanent 
conquest. When they discovered their mistake, 
they came to terms with the conquerors, and 
Oppas in particular is accused of taking an 
active part on their side on two occasions. He 
arrested and executed certain lords at Toledo, 
who were meditating flight (Isidorus Pacensis in 
Migne, Patr. Lot. xcvi. 1263), and he accom- 
panied the army that attacked Pelayo in his 
mountain stronghold, and was taken prisoner in 
their rout (Chron. Albeldense in Etp. Sag. xiii. 
450). According to the Chronicle of Sebastian 
(•Esp. Sag. xiii. 479) he was sent to summon Pe- 
layo to surrender. (Gams, Kirckmgeschichte von 
, H. (2), 242 } Etp. Sag. ix. 229). [F. D.] 

OPPILA, nn ambassador from the Spanish 
Arian king Leovigild to Chilperic, the catholio 
king of the Franks. On his first arrival he 
professed to hold the catholic faith, but his 
Arinnism was discovered by an observation he 
made upon the worship of the Frank church : — 
" You do not recite the gloria correctly ; for 
whereas we, after St. Paul, say 'Gloria Deo 
Patri per filium,' yon say ' Gloria Patri et 
Filio et Spiritui Sancto.'" There followed a 
long debate, which is preserved in Gregory of 
Tours, but with what effect on Oppila is not 
known. His colleague Agila, however, after his 
return to Spain, adopted the catholic view 
(Greg. Turon. Hist. Fr. vi. 40 in Pat. Lot. Ixxi. 
316). [R. J. £.] 

OPPORTUNA, ST., abbess of Monasterio- 
lnm or Montreuil 'in Normandy. To other 
virtues she added extreme gentleness, correcting 
the faults of her nuns with words instead of 
blows. When her brother St. Godegrand bishop 
of Seez returned from a seven years' pilgrimage 
to Rome, and was murdered at the instigation 
of his kinsman and locum-tenens, Chrodobert, 
between Opportuna's monastery and that of her 
aunt St. Lantildis at Almeneches, she cariied 
him to Monasteriolum, and buried him in her 
church. She survived him one year, dying 
about A.D. 770. Her life, written in the follow- 
ing century by St. Adalelmns or Adeliuus, bi- 
shop of Secz, is given by Mabillon, Acta SS. 
0. S. B. iii. pars. ii. 220, edit. 1672, and by 
Henschenius, Boll. Acta SS. Apr. iii. p. 61. Her 
day is April 22. She is not commemorated in 
the old Martyrologies, nor in the modern Ro- 
man, but is praised in the Acts of St. Godegrand 
(Boll. Acta SS. Sept. i. 763 ; Gallia Christiana, 
xi. 677). She is one of the patron saints of 
Paris and of Almeneches and is represented with 
an angel near her, in allusion to a tradition that 
when she entered the monastery to take the 
veil, the nuns saw her guardian angel walking 
bv her side (Cahier, CaracUristiques det Saints, 
43, 626, 660). [A. B. C. D.] 

OPPORTUNU8 (IX abbat of the monastery 
of St. Leontius (72), complained to Gregory 
the Great that certain relics of the martyr had 
been stolen from his church. Gregory there- 
upon writes to Petrus, bishop of Hydruntum, 
(Otranto) asking him to send something to be 
substituted in their place, as the body of Leontius 
was preserved in the church of Brundusiura, 
over which Petrus had a visitatorial jurisdiction 
{Epp. vi. 62). [F. D.] 

OPPOBTUNUS (2), of Aprutium (Teramo) 
had been rebuked by Gregory the Great, who, 
hearing afterwards that he was overwhelmed 
with grief in consequence, wrote to encourage 
him, exhorting him to turn to God with his 
whole heart, to be charitable to his neighbours, 
to forgive injuries, and to think it gain if 
he had been unjustly blamed. (Epp. x. 68.) 
Gregory afterwards heard that he was leading 
a religious life, and directs Passivus, bishop of 
Firmum, to summon him and exhort him to 
persevere ; and if he found he had done nothing 
worthy of death, to advise him to become a 
monk or subdeacon, and after a time, commit 
to- his charge Aprutium, which had long been 
without a pastor (xii. 12). [F. D.] 

Digitized by 




OPTATIANUS. [Poefimub.] 

OPTATUS (1), a bishop stated to hare 
appeared after death in a vision to St. Satnrus. 
Morcelli (Afr. Chr. ii. 54) makes him biahop of 
Carthage, A.D. 201-204. [Perpetoa.] Tille- 
mont concludes that nothing can be decided 
from the mention of Optatus as to the place of 
martyrdom of St. Saturus and St. Perpetua. 
(Tillemont, iii. 151, 644 ; Visio Saturi in Boll. 
Acta S3. 7 Mart. i. 636.) [R. J. K.] 

OPTATUS (2), African bishop (Cm Ep. 
56). [Ahmnius.] [E. W. B.] 

OPTATUS (8), Carthaginian confessor, after 
being lector and master of catechumens (Doctor 
Auilientiumi), to which office he was appointed 
after examination by the bishop and presbyter- 
teachers (doctoret, compare Aspasius in Act. 
Perpet. et Felic. xiii.), he was made subdeacon at 
the same time and for the same purpose as 
Saturus was ordained for. (Cyp. Ep. 29 ; Ep. 
35.) [E. W. B.] 

OPTATUS (4), a bishop mentioned in. the 
Acts of St. Justjna (4). He is said to hare 
baptized that saint, and to have ordained her 
father a presbyter (Boll. Acta S3. 26 Sep. vii. 
218). The Bollandist Cleus, followed by Le 
Quien, reckons him bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, 
about A.D. 300. (Le Quien, Or. Christ, i. 1037.) 

[G. T. S.] 

OPTATUS (6) [Saraqossa, Mart, of.] 

OPTATUS (6), saint and martyr (?), bishop 
of Milevis, or Mileum (Milah), a town of Ku- 
midia, 25 m. N.W. of Cirta (Shaw, Iran. p. 63), 
a vigorous opponent of the Donatists. He says 
ef himself that he wrote about sixty years, or 
rather more, after the persecution under Dio- 
cletian, i.e. c. A.D. 363. St. Jerome speaks of 
him in general terms as having written during 
the reigns of Valentinian and Valens, A.D. 365- 
378. But in the second book of his treatise 
Siricius is mentioned as bishop of Home, "qui 
est noster socius." As Siricius did not succeed 
Damasus until A.D. 384, these words may have 
been inserted, as Baronius suggests, by the 
transcriber of his book, or he may have outlived 
the period mentioned by St. Jerome, and himself 
inserted them at a later time. The date of his 
death, however, is unknown. He is called a 
saint by Fulgentius, and a martyr by Baronius, 
on the authority of the Roman Martyrology, 
which connects his name with June 4. But no 
church or altar is known to be dedicated to his 
memory, and no public persecution was raging 
at any time when his death may be supposed to 
have taken place. St. Augustine mentions his 
name once in the same sentence as St. Ambrose, 
and elsewhere as a church-writer of high autho- 
rity, even among Donatists. (Opt. c.JJon. i. 13, 
ii. 3; S. Hieron. Vir. Illustr. c 110, vol. ii. 
p. 706 ; Aug. c. Doit. ep. (de Unit. Eccl.) 19, 
50 ; c. Parm. i. 3, 5 ; Brevic. Coll. 20, 38 ; Doctr. 
Christ, ii. 40, 61 ; Baronius, Ann. vol. iv. p. 243 ; 
Morcelli, Afr. Chr. ii. 275; Dupin, Optatus 
Prat/. 1.) 

The treatise of Optatus against the Donatists 
is in the form of a letter to Parmeoian, Dona- 
tist bishop of Carthage, and consists of «ix 
books, with a seventh of doubtful authenticity. 


L The first book opens with a eulogy of peace, 
which he complains that the Donatists set 
at nought by reviling the Catholics. He adds 
some compliments to Parmenian, as the only one 
of his party with whom he can communicate 
freely, and regrets being compelled to do so by 
letter, because they refuse to meet for conference. 
Some statements by Parmenian, who is a " pere- 
grinus," i.e. perhaps not a native of Africa, but 
certainly belonging to a different province, were 
made in ignorance, especially such as related to 
the sending of the soldiers. Like the Catholics, 
Donatists maintain unity of baptism, yet they 
repeat it, and in so doing covertly commend 
themselves as the only persons fit to administer 
that rite. But if it be unlawful for " traditors" 
to do this, they ought to be excluded, for their 
own fathers were guilty of " tradition ;" and if 
for schismatics, they themselves are guilty of 
schism. Five points call for discussion, to which 
Optatus adds a sixth. 1. In accusing Catholics 
of " tradition," particulars ought to be specified 
of time and place. 2. The true church ought 
to be defined. 3. Which side is really respon- 
sible for calling in the aid of the soldiers. 4. 
What Parmenian means by "sinners" whose 
" oil and sacrifice " God rejects. 5. The question 
of baptism. 6. The riotous and rash acts of the 
Donatists. But before proceeding farther 
Optatus finds fault with Parmenian for his in- 
considerate language about our Lord's baptism, 
to the effect that His flesh required to be 
"drowned in the flood" of Jordan, in order to 
remove its impurity. If the baptism of Christ's 
body were intended to suffice for the baptism 
of each single person, there might be some 
truth in this, bnt we are baptized, in virtue not 
of the flesh of Christ, but of His name, and 
moreover we cannot believe that even His flesh 
contracted sin, for it was more pure than Jordan 
itself. It is probable, however, as Ribbeck 
remarks, that Optatus, in his anxiety to prevent 
misapplication by others of the language of 
Parmenian in this matter, has taken it in too 
literal a sense, and imputed to it • meaning 
beyond what it was intended to convey. Having 
complained of Parmenian for dragging in here- 
tical names irrelevantly, as if to magnify his 
charges against the church, he agrees with him 
in what he says about heretics, how the gifts of 
the church, the sacraments, and marriage do not 
truly belong to them, and he quotes Cant. iv. 
12, vi. 9, in support of this view. They have 
not the keys of St. Peter, nor the ring which is 
the seal of admission, closing the " fountain," for 
it was not Caecilianus who withdrew from the 
chair of Peter and of Cyprian, but Majorinus, 
whose seat is now filled by Parmenian. As a 
schismatic, he ought to shrink from joining 
heretics, for there is a great difference between 
heresy and schism, yet by their conduct the 
Donatists condemn themselves in this respect. 
But it is necessary to recount the history of the 
past, which he gives in detail, for which the 
reader may be referred for the most part to the 
articles on Donatism, Vol. I. p. 882 ; Caeci- 
UANUS, ik. p. 367 ; Felix (26), Vol. II. p. 487 ; 
LuoiLLA, Vol. III. p. 751. A few particulars, 
however, may be added. 1. That Mcnsurius, 
having been summoned by Maxentius to account 
for his protection afforded to Felix (187), died on 
his return to Carthage. 2. The schism at Car- 

Digitized by 



.thaga arose partly from the disappointment of 
Botras and Celestlus, partly from the ill-will of 
the Seniors against Caecilianus for detecting 
their dishonesty, and partly from the conduct of 
Lucilla. The purpose of Optatus is to shew that 
it was not the church which cast off the 
Donatists, but they who separated from the 
church, following in this respect the example 
of Korah and his company. When they dis- 
claim the right of princes to interfere in the 
affairs of the church they contradict their fore- 
fathers, who, when the matter of Caecilianus 
was in dispute, petitioned Constantine to grant 
them judges from Gaul instead of from Africa. 

II. In the second book Optatus proceeds to 
discuss the question, what is the church, the 
dove and bride of Christ, Cant. vi. 9. Its holi- 
ness consists in the sacraments, and is not to be 
measured by the pride of men. It is universal, 
not limited, as Parmenian would have it, to a 
corner of Africa, for if so where would be the 
promises of Pss. ii. 8, lxxii. 8 ? And the merits 
of the Saviour would be restricted, Pss. cxiii. 3, 
xcvi. 7. The church has five gifts which Donatists 
make si*. 1. The chair of Peter. 2. The angel 
which is attached inseparably to the first. By this 
Optatus appears to mean the power of confer- 
ring spiritual gifts, which resides in the centre 
of episcopal unity. Parmenian must be aware 
that the episcopal chair was conferred from the 
beginning on Peter, the chief of the apostles, so 
that in virtue of this one chair unity might be 
preserved among the rest, and no one apostle set 
up a rival opponent. This chair, with whose 
exclusive claim for respect the little Donatist 
community can in no way compete [Macrobilb, 
Montenses, Tol. III. 781, 947], carries with it 
necessarily the " angel " (ducit ad se angelum), 
unless the Donatists have this gift enclosed for 
their own use in a narrow space, and excluding 
the seven angels of St. John (Rev. i.), with 
whom they have no communion; or if they 
possess one of these, let them send him to other 
churches: otherwise their case falls to the 
ground. 3. The holy spirit of adoption, which 
Donatist* claim exclusively for themselves, 
applying to Catholics unjustly the words of our 
Lord about proselytism, Matth. xxiii. 15. 4. 
The fountain (probably faith) of which heretics 
cannot partake, and 5. its seal, '• annulus " 
(probably baptism), Cant. iv. 12. But a want 
of clearness in the language of Optatus at this 
point renders his meaning somewhat doubtful. 
The Donatists add a sixth gift, the " umbilicus " 
of Cant. vii. 2, which they regard as the altar ; 
but this, being an essential part of the body, 
cannot be a separate gift. These gifts belong to 
the church in Africa, from which the Donatists 
have cut themselves off, as also from the priest- 
hood, which they seek by re-baptism to annul, 
though they do not rebaptize their own returned 
aecedera. But why do they lay so much stress 
on gifts, for these belong to the bride, not the 
bride to them. They regard them as the gene- 
rating power of the church instead of the essen- 
tials (viscera), viz. the Sacraments, which derive 
their virtue from the Trinity. Parmenian truly 
compares the church to a garden, but it is God 
-who plants the trees therein, some of which 
Donatists seek to exclude. In offering the 
sacrifice to God in the Eucharist, they profess to 
offer for the: ope church, but by their re-baptism 



they really make two churches. Thanking 
Parmenian for his language about tho church, 
which, however, he claims as applicable to the 
Catholic church alone, he challenges him to 
point out any act of persecution on its part. 
Constantine took pains to restore peace and 
suppress idolatry, but another emperor, who 
declared himself an apostate, when he restored 
idolatry allowed the Donatists to return, a per- 
mission for the acceptance of which they ought to 
blush. It was about this time that the outrage* 
broke out in Africa [Felix (185), CJrbands], ot 
which when Primosus complained, the Donatist 
council at Theneste took no notice. Besides 
others mentioned above [Vol. I. p. 883] they 
compelled women under vows to disregard then, 
and perform a period of penance, and deposed 
from his office Donatus bishop of Tyscdis. Yet 
they speak of holiness as if Christ gave it 
without conditions, and take every opportunity 
of casting reproach on church ordinances, ful- 
filling the words of Ezek. xiii. 20. 

III. In the third book, after going over again 
some of the former ground, and as before laying 
the blame of the schism on the Donatists, 
Optatus applies to them, in a figurative way, 
several passages of Scripture, especially Pss. 
lxxxvii., cxlvii., Is. ii. 3, xxii. 1, 9. In these he 
considers Zion, though destroyed as a city, to 
denote the church spread over the Roman empire. 
The " old pool " (Is. xxii. 9) answers to baptism, 
which, together with the fish of Tobit vi. de- 
noting Jesus Christ, they have endeavoured to 
divert. Daniel foretold four persecutions, but 
neither of these answers to the so-called perse- 
cution under Macarius, and their proceedings 
have made them liable to the denunciation of 
Ezek. xiii. 10-15, for it was their wall of " itu- 
tempered mortar" which Leontius and others 
were obliged to destroy. If these men were to 
blame, then Elijah and Phineas were so also. They 
surely come under the denunciation of Is. v. 20, 
and also the prophecies about Tyre, Is. xxiii., 
Ezek. xxviii. 

IV. In the fourth book, disclaiming all un- 
friendly feeling, and appealing to the common 
possessions of both parties, Optatus charges the 
Donatists with infraction of unity by appoint- 
ment of bishops, and by proselytism, by forbid- 
ding social intercourse, and perversely applying 
to Catholics Scripture passages directed against 
obstinate heretics, as 1 Cor. v. 11, 2 John 10. 
As to the "oil and sacrifice" which they say 
ought not to be administered by sinners, God is 
the judge of this, as appears from Ps. 1. 16-20, 
and the word " sinners " in Ps. cxli. 5 ought not 
to be applied in the sense in which they apply it 
against Catholics. 

Y. In his fifth book Optatus returns to the 
oft-repeated subject of re-baptism. Of his argu- 
ment an abstract will be found in Vol. I. p. 886, 
to which little need be added. The repetition of 
baptism, he says, is an insult to the Trinity, 
worse than the doctrines of Praxeas and the 
Patripassians. In the confusion caused by the 
opposite doctrines of Catholics and Donatists, an 
umpire seems to be necessary, but what judge, 
he asks, can be required beyond the plain words 
of Scripture, John xiii. 8, Eph. iv. 5? Three 
elements are requisite : (1) the Trinity, (2) the 
minister, (3) the faithful receiver ; but of these 
I the Donatists exalt the second above the other 

Digitized by 




two. They oae as a quotation words not found 
in Scripture, " How can a man give what he has 
not received 1" (see 1 Cor. ir. 7) ; bnt in baptism 
<3od alone is the giver of grace. As it is not the 
dyer who changes the colour of his wool, s> 
neither does the minister of himself change the 
operation of baptism. Of two candidates for 
baptism, if one refused to renounce while the 
other consented, there can be no doubt which of 
them received baptism effectually. By re- 
baptizing Donatists rob Christians of their mar- 
riage garment, that robe which suits all ages and 
conditions of life. He who has permitted him- 
self to be rebaptized will rise no doubt at the 
last day, but he will rise naked, and the voice of 
the Master will be heard, " Friend, I once knew 
thee, and gave thee a marriage-garment; who 
has despoiled thee of it, into what trap, amongst 
■what thieves hast thou fallen?" According to 
Donatists, he who misses their ministers and 
doorkeepers is cast out of the heavenly company ; 
will their holiness raise the dead and mend men's 
lives ? If not, why meddle with the living and 
slay those that ought not to die ? (Ezek. xiii. 19.) 

VI. In the sixth book he repeats some pre- 
vious charges against Donatists, and adds others, 
how they destroyed altars, the " seats of Christ's 
Body and Blood," st which they themselves 
must have offered. But during service the 
tables are covered, and if so, not the wooden 
tables but the cloths must have been in fault, 
but if the tables, then the ground on which they 
stood. They have broken up chalices and sold 
them to women and even to pagans, yet they quote 
Hagg. ii. 14 ; but even impurity of men does not 
profane the vessels of service, see Numb. xvi. 
87, 38. They compelled virgins to change their 
caps, but St. Paul gave no command about virgins, 
1 Cor. vii. 25, thus confessing that he had ex- 
pended the " two pence " of Lnke x. 85, viz. the 
two Testaments. By taking away these caps, 
which in themselves are no remedy against sin, 
they expose the women to danger. They have 
also taken away sacred books and instruments, 
and ventured to purify the latter of these ; but 
if so why not the books also ? They have 
washed the walls of churches with salt water, 
and forbidden in them burial of Catholics. 
Lastly, they seek to seduce Catholics from the 

VII. The seventh book, which is not mentioned 
by St. Jerome, but which may on good MS. 
grounds be ascribed to Optatus, is supplemen- 
tary to the six previous books, and answers a 
fresh complaint made by the Donatists, that if 
they are the children of " traditors," as Optatus 
says, they ought to be let alone, and no attempt 
made to " reconcile " them ; but, says Optatus, 
though their fathers deserved to be excluded, 
there is no reason why they should be so, for 
the church repels no baptized persons. Christ 
allows two sorts of seed to grow in His field, and 
no bishop has power to do what the apostles 
could not, viz. separate them. They might have 
refused to communicate with Peter because he 
denied his Lord, yet he retained the keys given 
to him by Christ. They sometimes quote Eccl. 
x. 1 regarding " ointment " as God's grace ; but 
if the ointment belongs exclusively to them, 
how can Catholics corrupt it if Donatists refuse 
to mix with them ? They compare themselves 
to Moses withstanding Jannes and Jambres, but 


are the chair and keys of Peter signs of false* 
hood? The case ought really to be inverted. 
Lastly their accusations against Macarius cannot 
be sustained, but Donatists seek to condemn him 
in his absence by the testimony of persons who 
do not acknowledge that he acted wrongly. 

The foregoing abstract, taken in connexion 
with the article on Donatism (Vol. I. pp. 885, 
886), may perhaps be taken as a sufficient 
account of the work of Optatus, of which we 
may say that it is more important in a historical 
than in a doctrinal point of view. As a theo- 
logical treatise it is often loose and rambling, 
and guilty of frequent repetition; but it exposes 
with clearness and force the inconsistency of the 
Donatists, and of all who, like them, fix their 
attention exclusively on the ethical side of reli- 
gion, estimated by an arbitrary standard of 
opinion, to the disregard of other conditions of 
the greatest importance in the constitution of a 
church. How perversely and inconsistently the 
Donatists applied this principle in the matter of 
re-baptism, Optatus again and again demon- 
strates, returning in various parts of his treatise 
to this point with much soreness of feeling. 
That there was a doctrine of re- baptism in the 
African church, to which Cyprian had lent the 
weight of his authority, there can be no doubt, 
but with him it was directed against heretics ; 
on the principle that the followers of Marcion, 
Praxeas, and the like, were in fact not truly 
Christians, and thus their baptism was in itself 
valueless. But Optatus is never weary of urging, 
that though by their own act Donatists had 
incurred the charge of schism, the church did 
not regard them as heretics, and that they 
ought not to treat as heretical their brethren 
who disclaimed fastening on them that oppro- 
brious name. In maintaining the unity of the 
church, a principle upheld by Donatists no less 
strongly than by Catholics, Optatus insists 
greatly on communion with the church of Rome 
and the chair of St. Peter, and he is accordingly 
cited by Romanist writers with much confidence 
as an important witness to the supremacy of the 
papal chair. No doubt his words taken alone 
appear strongly to support that view, bnt they 
must be weighed in connexion with the words 
and also the conduct of Cyprian and other 
church authorities, and thus compared they will 
be found to assert no more than the necessity, 
so obvious in that day, of communion with the 
Roman church, and its acknowledged primacy 
among the other churches of the Christian com- 
munity. In his application of Scripture pas- 
sages, especially of a prophetical and symbolical 
kind, Optatus may be thought too strained and 
fanciful ; but his mode of application is in ac- 
cordance with the current interpretations of the 
time, and would probably agree in principle, 
though not in application, with such as were 
recognised by his opponents. His style, though 
not always clear, and often harsh, is for the 
most part homely and unpretending, and though 
sometimes pompous and inflated, contains one 
passage at least which rises to eloquence (v. 20). 

The earliest printed edition of the works of 
Optatus was prepared by John Cochlee, dean of 
St. Mary, Frankfort, and published at Mentz, 
1549, but was full of errors. A corrected 
edition of this was published at Paris in 1562 
by Baudouin, and a further one by the same 

Digitized by 



editor, with correction*, notes, dissertations, 
and important historical additions, in 1569. 
This was followed in the Bibliotheca Maxima 
Patrvm, vol. 4. Other editions followed at 
various times, including one by Gabriel do 
l'Aubespine bishop of Orleans, published in 1631, 
after his death, and probably from that cause 
containing many mistakes, and one by Meric 
Casaubon, London, 1631, which as regards the 
text is mainly a reprint with conjectural emenda- 
tions, but containing some useful notes. At 
length the work of a new edition, on the basis 
of fresh HSS., was undertaken by Dupin, who 
published the seven books as they now stand 
at Paris in 1700. This was reprinted at Am- 
sterdam in 1701, and at Antwerp, best ed., 
thin folio, in 1702, and is the groundwork of 
all subsequent editions. One of his new MSS. 
contains documents relating to the Donatists, 
which were unknown before, and to his revised 
text he added valuable notes, both of his own 
and by previous editors. A reprint of Dupin will 
be found in Galland, Bibliotheca Pair. vol. v. 
The text alone was published by Oberthilr in 
vol. 12 of his Bibliotheca, Wiirzb. 1789, with a 
second volume (13) of various readings and 
useful notes, selected and original. The form, 
8vo, is convenient, and the additional documents 
are numbered, but the misprints are very nume- 
rous and perplexing. The text, without notes, 
appears in Caillau's Collection, vol. 57. The 
edition of Dupin has lately been reprinted in 
the 11th volume of Migne's Patrologia, and his 
pagination is preserved ; but the map being 
smaller in size is less clear than in Dupin's folio, 
and all the documents previous to A.D. 362 are 
purposely omitted and must be sought for in 
vol. viii. of the Patrologia. Thus the edition of 
Dupin, though perhaps in some respects less 
convenient in size, is altogether the best and 
most comprehensive. An account of Optatus 
and his writings will be found in Ceillier, vol. v. 

[H. W. P.] 

OPTATUS (7% Donatist bishop of Thamu- 
gada,iu which see he preceded Gaudentius, though 
in what year he became bishop does not appear. 
(Aug. c. Oavd.i. 38, 52.) He was a violent 
partisan of the original Donatist party, and as 
such supported Primian against the Maximian- 
ists. He attached himself to Gildo so closely, 
and as his opponents said, in so servile a manner, 
as to obtain the name of Gildonianus, and in 
their opinion deserved every possible epithet of 
reproach, thief, plunderer, traitor, tyrant, viper, 
which the excesses of Gildo, during his ten years' 
ascendancy in Africa, drew down upon him from 
every one, whether Jew, Pagan or Christian. 
Perhaps in the violence of the general invective 
there is some exaggeration, especially in the 
charge brought against him that he regarded 
Gildo as a deity, but he certainly appears to 
have made unscrupulous use of the military 
force under Gildo's command to carry out a 
system of persecution both against Catholics 
and Maximianists, destroying a church belong- 
ing to the latter, and even marching, it was 
said, over the corpses of the slain to accomplish 
his purposes ; and by his conduct bringing more 
ditcredit on the Donatist party than any African 
traitor had brought on the rest of the world. 
Bis persecution was so far successful as to compel 



the people of Musti and Assume with their bishops 
Kelicianus and Rogatus, who had succeeded to 
Praetextatus, to return to the original party of 
the Donatists, by whom his conduct is said to 
have been cordially approved, and his birthday, i.e. 
probably the anniversary of his episcopate, cele- 
brated with honour. [Feucianus (4).] After 
the downfall of Gildo he was apprehended, and 
died in prison, a conclusion which Augustine 
was falsely charged by Petilian of contributing 
to bring about. His memory was held in respect 
by the Donatists, by whom he was regarded as a 
martyr. Emeritus was taunted by Augustine, 
if not with sympathy, at least with faint con- 
demnation of his behaviour, and Cresconius and 
Petilian taxed with declaring themselves unable 
to express a derided opinion concerning him, 
cither of acquittal or condemnation. In arguing 
with Petilian on the subject of Baptism, Augus- 
tine mentions the argument current among 
Donatists that Catholic Baptism was invalid, 
because of the bad character of those who ad- 
ministered it, and in reply he asks how they can 
regard as valid baptism by such a man as 
Optatus. While they argued that re-baptism 
was justified by the fact that St. Paul re-bap- 
tized persons baptized by St. John the Baptist, 
they forget that St. Paul s baptism was not in 
his own name, but in that of Christ, and that 
the efficacy of baptism does not after all depend 1 
on the personal character of the minister. (Aug. 
Parm. ii. 1, 2; e. Petit, i. 10, 11; 13, 14; 
18, 20; ii. 23, 53, 54; 37, 85, 88, 103, 237; 
iii. 40, 48 ; c. Crete, iii. 13, 16 ; iv. 25, 32 ; 46, 
55; c. Gaud. i. 38, 52. JSp. Ii. 3; liii. 3, 6; 
lxxvi. 3 ; lxxxvii. 4, 5, 8 ; cviii. 2, 5.) 

[H. W. P.] 

OPTATUS (8), prefect of Constantinople 
in the latter part of a.d. 404, subsequently to 
the banishment of Chrysostom and the confla- 
gration of the cathedral. Optatus, who was a 
bigoted pagan, had held the praefectship of 
Egypt, c. a.d. 384 (Corf. Theod. ed. Gothofred, 
torn. vi. pp. 310, 311), and that of Constantinople 
in A.D. 398 (ibid. torn. iv. p. 493 ; xii. tit. i. lex 
160 de Decor.}. He was appointed praefect a 
second time in the place of Studius, who had 
shewn himself too lenient in bis treatment of 
the adherents of Chrysostom. No such charge 
could be brought against Optatus. He felt the 
implacable animosity of a thorough pagan against 
the n;w faith, and evidently rejoiced in the 
opportunity offered him of treating its adherents 
with contumely and cruelty. He endeavoured 
to extort confessions of complicity in the con- 
flagration by the most horrible tortures, under 
which some of his victims expired. [Eotropius ; 
Serapion ; Tiqkids.] The noble ladies who were 
known to be friends and supporters of Chrysostom 
were dragged before him, and counselled to 
communicate with Arsacius or to brave the 
consequences. Some few complied. The majority 
stood firm, among whom the deaconesses Pen- 
tadia and Olympias held a distinguished place 
for the courage of their confession. It proving 
impossible to substantiate the charge of setting 
the cathedral on fire, and equally hopeless to 
bend her to his will, Olympias was dismissed. 
Towards the middle*of the following year, A.D. 
405, Olympias was summoned before Optatus 
a second time, and was fined 200 lb. of gold 

Digitized by 




(Socr. //. E. vi. 18 j Soz. II. E. viii. 24 » Pallad. 
Dial. p. 28). The fourth law de usuris was ad- 
dressed to him, A.D. 405. (Cod. Theod. torn. i. 
p. 237 ; ii. tit. 33.) [E. V.] 

OPTATUS (9), a bishop, perhaps of Milevis, 
who joined with St. Augustine and other Catholic 
bishops in exculpating Marcellinns from the 
charge brought against him by the Donatists of 
corrupt partiality at the Carthaginian confer- 
ence, a.d. 411 ; Aug. Ep. cxli. 169, 13 ; clxxxv. 
6. MARCBLLUTOS (7). He also wrote to Augus- 
tine a letter, of which Renatus was the bearer, 
requesting his opinion on the metaphysical ques- 
tion of the propagation of the human sou), a 
subject concerning which there was much dis- 
cussion in the church at that time, and on which 
previously to the conference Marcellinus had 
written to Augustine and also to St. Jerome to 
ask their opinion, to whom, together with his 
wife Anapsychia, St. Jerome replied, excusing 
himself from discussing the question at length 
on the ground of want of time, but mentioning 
what he believed to be the opinion generally 
held by the Western church, viz. that the soul 
is transmitted by descent, though he himself 
was disposed to think that each soul is created 
separately, and recommending his correspondents 
to consult Augustine as being within their reach 
in Africa. (Aug. Ep. cxliii. 165.) In reference 
to this appeal Augustine wrote to St. Jerome 
declining to give any positive opinion of his own 
on the question, and requesting one from him, 
approving his condemnation of Origen's notion 
that, as a punishment for sins committed in 
other states of being, souls transmigrate into 
other bodies (Hieron. adv. Raff. iii. 30), men- 
tioning that in his own book on Free Will he 
had stated the opinions on the subject which 
were current at that time, and stating tome 
important objections to them of the same kind 
aa those which he states in his subsequent letter 
to Optatus. (Ep. clxvi. A.D. 415.) In his reply 
to Optatus, Augustine persists in declining to 
give a positive opinion, but discusses the question 
cautiously yet with all respect and deference 
for his friend. The question put by him was 
whether the soul is derived from a single original 
creation, as in the case with natural descent, or 
proceeds in each case from a separate act of the 
Creator. In his book on Free Will Augustine 
had mentioned two other notions, viz. that souls 
which existed in a previous state of being, are 
-either transferred into other bodies by a divine 
impulse, or pass into them of themselves (de Lib. 
Arb. iii. 21). Dismissing in the course of his 
letter as untenable, some arguments of a merely 
verbal kind founded on such passages as Gen. ii. 
23 ; xlvi. 26 ; Ps. xxxiii. (xxxii.) 15 ; Eccl. xii. 7 ; 
Zech. xii. 1, pointing out the error contained in 
Tertulllan't opinion that the original of the soul 
was not a spiritual but a bodily substance 
<Tertull. adv. Prax. 7 ; de An. 1 ; Aug. Gen. ad 
lit. x. 25), and shewing that as in the case of 
Esau and Jacob, the soul's existence in men's 
corruptible body is no part of a punishment for 
sin committed in another state of being (Rom. 
ix. 11, 13), he points out the necessity of re- 
conciling any opinion on the subject with the 
two cardinal doctrines (1) of original sin incurred 
in the person of Adam, and (2) redemption 
through Christ alone, with neither of which can 


any speculative opinion as to the origin of the 
soul be allowed to interfere. Even if no answer 
can be given to the question, the fact of redemp- 
tion must stand firm. The law came in to take 
away any notion of men's self-sufficiency, and 
both they who under the law believed in a 
Redeemer to come, and also all righteous men at 
any time, either before or after the Incarnation, 
are raised through faith in Him. (Acts xv. 10, 
11 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13.) As he pointed ont in his 
letter to St. Jerome, the case appears most 
strongly in that of infants. Having no actual 
sin of their own ; if they be a new creation, and 
in virtue of this newness they be exempt from 
the guilt of original sin, how can it be true, as 
the church believes, that this sin of theirs is 
remitted through the sacrament of the One 
Mediator, while those who die without it do not 
obtain the benefit which it confers ? If these 
new souls are liable to condemnation, they must 
have derived their origin not from God but from 
some other author. God's anger is not a sudden 
passion but a serious determination, in which He 
uses the condemnation of the wicked as a warn- 
ing to the good. Infants dying regenerate and 
taken to bliss, cannot be said to obtain this by 
any exercise of free will, any more than those 
who die without this grace in the lump (massa) 
of condemnation, in which, except for God's 
mercy, all would be included. His mercy may 
thus be said to assist the children and prevent 
the grown people. The transmission of the 
soul is not less intelligible than the communica- 
tion of light from one object to another withont 
diminution of itself, he cannot believe that re- 
generation of infants is fictitious, or that God 
is the author of the stain in them. While he 
is unable to form a definite judgment on the 
matter from canonical scripture, he warns his 
friend against falling into a new error like that 
of Pelagius, on which he will send him the 
judgment of the apostolic see, if he has not 
already seen it (Zosimus). This heresy consists 
in denying, not that souls proceed from a sinful 
origin, but that children derive from Adam any 
taint which must be removed in baptism. If, 
said Pelagius, the soul is not propagated, hut 
only the body, then the body alone ought to be 
punished. That the soul of the Mediator 
derived no taint from Adam cannot be doubted, 
not because he was unable to obtain for himself 
a soul without sin, not to create a new one for 
that body which being free from sin He himself 
took from his Virgin Mother. (Aug. Ep. 190.) 

[H. W. P.] 

OPTATUS (10), a presbyter, bearer of a 
letter from St. Augustine to Celer, proconsul of 
Africa. [Celeb (1).] (Aug. Ep. 56.) 

[H. W. P.] 

OPTATUS (11), bishop of Sitifa, a.d. 525, 
mentioned in the address of bishop Boniface to 
the council of Carthage ; obliged to absent 
himself from the meeting of the council on a 
special commission for kingHilderic. (Hardouin, 
ii. 1075 j Morcelli, Afr. Chr. i. 284.) [R. J. K.] 

OPTATUS (1$) ST., bishop of Anxerre In 
the 6th century. Commemorated on Feb. 18 
(Gall. Chr. xii. 266). [C .&] 

OPTATUS (13), defensor, was charged by 
Gregory the Great, in A.D. 603, to inquire if 

Digitized by 





certain clerics at Nursia bad women in their 
boosts who were not related to them. If this 
im true, he was to admonish them to desist, 
and if they were contumacious to call in the 
aid of CBKY8ANTHD8, bishop of Spoleto. (Epp. 
liii. 85.) He is probably not the same person 
as the defensor of the same name mentioned in 
another letter (Epp. xiu. 11). [F. D.] 

OPTATUS (14), abbat of Monte Casino. 
St Boniface archbishop of Mains writes to him 
and his community, exhorting to brotherly lore, 
and recommending the establishment of a con* 
fraternity with his own monks, Aj). 752. He 
ruled the monastery from about 752 to Jan. 4, 
760. (Jaffe, Monum. Mogtmt. 356 ; Bonif. Ep. 
83 in Pat. Lot. lxxxix. ; Ceillier, xii. 52 ; Vid. 
Leo, Canon. Mon. Cat. in Pert*, Mm. Hist. rii. 
585, 586.) [R. J. K.] 

OPTIMUS (1), bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, 
to which he was translated from Agdamia (Soc 
vii. 36), which Le Quien (i. 817) calls Acmouia 
in Phry gia Pacatiaua. He was one of the most 
distinguished orthodox prelates of his time, 
baring undauntedly defended the Catholic faith 
under Yalens, and had refuted heretics (Theod. 
H. E. iv. 20). He attended the council of Con- 
stantinople in 381 (Theod. H. E. v. 8 ; Labbe, 
ii. 957), and was appointed one of the centres of 
Catholic communion for the Eastern church (de- 
signated "patriarch" by Socrates, H. E. v. 8), 
by the council and the emperor Theodosius, 
representing in that capacity the diocese of Asia, 
together with Amphilochius of Iconium (Cod. 
Theod. dt fid. Cath. xvi. tit. i. lex 3, torn. vi. p. 9). 
While at Constantinople he signed the will of 
Gregory Nazianzen as a witness. He also shared 
is the bounty of Olympias for the poor of her 
diocese, and, dying in the imperial city, his eyes 
were closed by the same holy woman (Pallad. 
p. 116). Wt hare a very long letter cf Basil's 
addressed to Optimus in a.d. 377, expounding 
at bis request the passages relating to Cain 
(Gen. ir. 15), Lantech (ib. 23-25), and the words 
of Simeon (Lu. ii. 34, 35) (Basil, Ep. 260 [317]). 
Optimus is mentioned in the petition of the 

deacon Basil and other monks, in the acts of 
the council of Ephesus, among the holy fathers 
whose doctrine they desired to follow. (Labbe, 
iu. 426.) [E. V.] 

OPTIMUS (8), proconsul of Asia in the time 
of the Decian persecution, under whom several 
martyrs suffered at Lampsacus. (Boll. Acta SS. 
15 Mai. Hi. 453 e; Tillem. Hi. 345, 346, 392- 
394; Kuinart, AA. Sine. pp. 144, 147.) 


OB. [See Hoe.] 

ORACH, abbat of Liamore and of Inch Var- 
Shelmaliere, co. Wexford, died A.D. 781. (Ann. 
OU. A.n. 780.) [J. g.] 

ORATORIA, the name of an abbess ad- 
dressed in one of the letter* of Caesarius bishop 
of Aries, according to the reading of Holstenius, 
"Epistola ad Oratoriaro Abbatissam" (Codex 
Begat, iu. 40); but Migne (Pat. Lot. t. Ixrii. 
1135) heads the letter, "Epistola Hortatoria 
ad Virginem." (Ceill. xi. 152 ; Boll. Acta SS. 
27th Auk- vi. 63.) [J, 6.J 

ORDBRIHT (1), the name assigned to the 
first of the fictitious abbats of Westminster. 
He is stated, in Sporley's MS. history of the 
abbey, to hare ruled for twelve years, and to 
have died on the 13th of January, 616 (Mon. 
Angl. i. 266). The early history of Westminster 
is very obscure, and the fictitious portions of it 
are hardly entitled to the name of legends, as 
they emerge so late from utter darkness. There 
is no mention of the abbey or of any church on 
the site, in any contemporary authority before 
the time of Hardicanute, whom the chronicle 
states to have been buried there (M. II. B. p. 
432). Yet within five and twenty years the 
abbey has risen into the first rank of monastic 
foundations, and a few years later possesses a 
history running back to the first ages of the 
English Church. Under the auspices of abbat 
Vitalis, who ruled from 1076 to 1082, a monk 
called Sulcard wrote an elaborate account of the 
ancient and miraculous foundation ; and later 
writers, Sporley in particular, who lived in the 
15th century, threw the history back to the age 
of King Lucius. According to Sulcard, the 
founder was a Londoner of the age of Ethelbert, 
whom Ailred of Rievaulx and Gervase of Can- 
terbury identify with the East Saxon king 
Sebert. Mellitus, when bishop of London, pro- 
cured the foundation in 604, and the consecration 
was miraculously performed by St. Peter him- 
self. A bare list of names carries the story on 
to the days of Ofia, in whose name some charters 
were forged either in the time of Edgar or more 
probably on the eve of the Norman Conquest. 
The languishing foundation was revived under 
Edgar, under whose name a further collection of 
charters is produced, in one of which the earlier 
fabulous history is recorded. In that reign an 
abbat named Wulfsin is placed at Westminster 
by William of Malmesbury, who seems to have 
known of the fabulous history, and whose evi- 
dence is therefore of little value. The real his- 
tory of the house begins with the reign of the 
Confessor, and the whole of the fabulous history 
probably originated within a few years after his 
death. (See Mon. Angl. i. 265 sq. ; W. Mahnesb. 
0. P. § 73 ; Kemble, Cod. Dipt. Ho*. 149, 569, 
779, 824-829; 842-846, lee. &c.) [S.] 

ORDBRIHT (2), a second abbat of West- 
minster, who is made by the fabulous history to 
preside from 785 to 797, and to have been bishop 
in Devon. There was no Anglo-Saxon bishopric 
in Devon for at least a century after that date. 
(Mm. Angl. i. 268, 267 ; Kemble, C. D. No. 149.) 


ORENTIUS, Pelagian bishop at council of 
Ephesus (Labbe, Hi. 666). [Oeontius (3).] 

[T. W. D.] 

Cave (i. 503) and Ceillier bishop of Elvira, is more 
properly Okonthjs (5).] [C. H.] 

ORENTIUS, bp. Merida. [Orosttos (7).] 

ORENTIUS, of Tarragona. [OBBSrus.] 

ORESIESIS (al. Omsk), a friend and coad- 
jutor of Pachomius. He wrote a treatise, now 
lost, on the monastic life. (Oennad. De Vtrit 
Itlustr. s. v. ; Cave, H. L. «. v.) [L G« 3-] 

Digitized by 




ORESIUS, a Spaniard of Tarragona, addressed 
by Sidoniaa (lib. ix. Ep. 12 in Pat. Lot. lviii. 
629), the date of the letter being in or about 
484 (Baron. Ann. 484 exxxvi. and Pagi). Ba- 
ronios names him Orentius, and thinks he may 
have subsequently become the bishop of Elvira, 
if it be not Lerida, called Orontius, who attended 
the council of Tarragona in 516 (Hardouin, ii. 
1044). [Orontius (6).] [C.H.] 

ORESTES (1), keymaker, addressed by Nilus 
(lib. ii. ep. 217> [C. H.] 

OBESTES (2), prefect of Alexandria 
[CrEiLLUS (2), Htpatia], incensed against 
Cyril, chiefly because the archbishop wished to 
spy into his official acts. For an account of 
their quarrel, and the riot and bloodshed, vide 
Sac. vii. 13, 14. His name is also associated with 
Hypatia, who was regarded as the obstacle to a 
reconciliation between Cyril and Orestes through 
her frequent communications with the latter. 
(Soc. rii. 15.) [R. J. K.] 

ORESTES (8), 2nd or 3rd bishop of Bazas, 
was, according to Gregory of Tours, one of the 
three bishops who consecrated Faustianus, the 
nominee of the pretender Gundovald, to the see 
of Dax. Though Orestes denied complicity he 
shared the penalty imposed on the other two 
[Faustcanus]. He was present at the second 
council of Macon held in 585, where the matter 
was considered. (Greg. Tnr. Hist. Franc, vii. 31, 
Tin. 2, 20; Gall. Christ, i. 1192; Mansi, ix. 
957.) [S. A. B.] 

OREUS, see Hebdomas, Vol. II. p. 580. 

OREUS or ORENTIUS, of Auch. 

OROARUS, abbat of Westminster (744-56) 
in the spurious list of the monk Sporley 
(ifonatt. Angl. i. 267> [C. H.] 

ORIBASIU8, addressed by Nilus (lib. ■▼■ 
ep. 15); another, addressed by Isidore of Pelu- 
sium (lib. i. ep. 437). [C. H.] 

ORIENTIUS, bishop of Auch (Ausci, Au- 
gusta Ausciorum, or Auiium), in the early part 
of the 5th century. Of this bishop it is related 
that he resolved to abandon the pleasures of the 
world, and the vices to which he had been some- 
what prone, for the devout life; and that he 
was led, by supernatural guidance, to choose, as 
the place of his retirement, Bigorra in Vasconia 
(Bigorre, about 15 miles U.K. of Pan). Here 
he is said to have lived in austere sanctity until 
he was chosen bishop of Anch, on the death of 
Ursianua or Ursinianus. As bishop, he distin- 
guished himself by resisting and overcoming the 
Arian heresy, which prevailed extensively among 
the people of his diocese, more especially among 
the Goths. The date of his episcopate, which 
is said to have lasted 41 years, is to a certain 
extent fixed by the statement that he was sent 
by the king of the Goths (Theodoric) from Tou- 
louse to Aetius and Litorius. This event, late in 
his life, must have been in the year 439 or 440. 
The date of 396, given as that of his death by 
Gams (Series Episc. p. 497), has for its founda- 
tion a document of the year 1108, quoted in 
Gallia Christiana, i. 974. The Gall. Christ, itself, 


by a miscalculation, gives the date of his episco- 
pate as 323-364. His successor Armentarius 
was apparently bishop in 451, a date which would 
agree with the story of Orientius's mission. There 
are also recorded concerning him several marvels ; 
notably, the purification of a certain mountain, 
formerly much infested by evil spirits ("im- 
mundis spiritibus valde refertum "). His modern 
title is St. Orens. To him were dedicated a 
Cluniac monastery at Auch, where his body was 
laid, and a chapel at Toulouse, of which city he 
is reckoned the patron saint. To this saint is 
ascribed the Commonitorium S. Orients, a short 
poem on the chief points of Catholic doctrine 
and practice. The poem has indeed been ascribed 
to Orosius of Tarraco, and to Orontius (perhaps 
identical with Orosius), who was present at the 
council of Tarraco, a.d. 516. It appears, how- 
ever, from internal evidence, to be of the 5th. 
century, and the work of one who not only bore 
the same name as the bishop of Auch, but had 
had similar experiences, political and religious. 
Certain minor works, comprising a poem on the 
Holy Trinity, an enumeration and explanation of 
the names of Christ, and fragments of a collec- 
tion of prayers in verse, are probably of a later 
date. The Commonitorium 3. Orients was first 
published by Martene (in the Coll. Nov. Vet. item. 
1700), and is also to be found in the Benedictine 
Thesaurus Anecdotorum (v. 18). (Martene, in 
the Thesaurus ; Ebert, Qesch. der Chr.-Lat. Lit. 
392; Cave, Hist. Litt. i. 503; Boll. Acta SS. 
1 Mai. i. 61.) [H. A. W.] 

I. Socacxa. 
II. Lira. 

III. Cheokoloot oi Works. 

IV. List and Axaltsis or Woxxs. 

A. Extoctioal WarroroB. 

1. Writings on 0* CM Testament. 

2. Writings on the Ifew Testament. 

B. Dogmatic Warrnras. 

1. On First Principles. 

2. JKsctllanies. 

C. Apologetic Warmtos. 

Books against Oelsus. 

D. Practical Warrnras. 

On Prayer. 

Exhortation to Martyrdom. 

E. Critical Warruraa. [See HkxapiaJ 

F. Litters. 

Q. Phtlocaua. 

Pseudonymous Writings. 
V. View or Christian Life. 
TI. Oeiokx as a Critic and Interpreter. 
VII. Origen as a Theolooiak. 
VIII. Characteristics. 
IX. Editions or Origin's Works. 

I. Sources. — The main authority for the de- 
tails of Origen's life is Eubebius (Hist. Ecc. vi.). 
Eusebius had made a collection of upwards 
of a hundred letters of Origen (H. E. vi. 36). 
These, together with official documents (H. E. 
vi. 23, 33), and the information which he derived 
from those who had been acquainted with 
Origen (H. E. vi. 2, 33), formed the basis of his 
narrative. His account of the most critical 
period of Origen's life, his retirement from Alex- 
• andria, was given in the second book of his Apo- 
logy, which he composed with the help of Pain- 
philus (H. E. vi. 23). This unhappily has not 
been preserved. 

Digitized by 



The controversial writings of JEROME and 
Rcfiscs have preserved some facts from the 
Apology of Ensebins and Pamphilus ; the first 
book of which remains in the translation of 
Rufinus. Bat Jerome had no independent know- 
ledge of the details of Origen's life. His short 
notice in Dt Yiria iliustnbus, c. 54, depends 
mainly on Ensebius ; but it contains a few de- 
tails which may have been derived from the 
Apology mentioned above. 

Epiphanhjs (Haer. Ixiv.) has preserved some 
anecdotes of different degrees of credibility. 

A few details, taken from the Apology of 
Pamphilus and Ensebins, are dne to Photius 
{Cod. 118). 

The writings of Orioen himself give but few 
details as to the circumstances of his life. But 
the loss of his letters is irreparable. They would 
bare given at least a fuller picture of the man, 
even if they gave little additional information 
on the outward circumstances of his life. Only 
once, so far as I have noted, does he refer to the 
associations of Caesarea with the early history 
of the church (Horn, in Num. xi. 3). In another 
place he speaks of having witnessed the con- 
stancy of martyrs {Horn, in Jud. ix. 1). On the 
other hand, the Farewell Address (xpoo-ipurnTiKc-s 
It -rmrnyvputoi Xiyos) of Gregory of Neo- 
Caesarea is a contemporary record of his 
method and influence of unique importance and 

Some books of modern times may be mentioned 
at once. An account of Origen's opinions, so far 
as they seemed open to objection, was given by 
Sextns Senensis in his Bibliotheca, Librr. vi. vii. 
<1566) in the spirit of a generous apologist. 
Genebrard arranged these points nnder general 
heads, in the introduction to his edition of 
Origen's Works (1574), and advocated Origen's 
cause with too great partiality in the judgment 
of Huet. P. Halloix went further in his ela- 
borate account and defence of Origen (Origenes 
defaults . . . Leodii, 1648) dedicated to Innocent X. 
(G. B. Pamfili : " Solent similia a similibus, si 
qoidem XlafupiKlois, in re non dissimili mfi<pi\las 
expectari "). The book was attacked and placed 
upon the Index, ' donee corrigatur,' but it had a 
powerful effect. The great work of Huet (Ori- 
geniand), prefixed to his edition of Origen's 
Commentaries (1668), was more complete and 
just. Nothing which has been written since 
shews greater or even equal mastery of the 
frets, though Huet's treatment is scholastic and 
necessarily deficient in historical feeling. Mean- 
vhile tbe controversy on Origen's doctrine of 
the pTe-existence of souls had spread to England. 
"A Letter of Resolution concerning Origen and the 
Chief of his Opinions " (London, 1661), published 
anonymously by 6. Rust, fellow of Christ's 
College, Cambridge, and afterwards bishop of 
Dromore, seems to have attracted considerable 
attention. Fabricius speaks of it with respect ; 
and it is in every way a remarkable piece of 
theological criticism. Two letters by S. Parker, 
afterwards bishop of Oxford, on the " Platonick 
Philosophy," and the " Origenian hypothesis of 
the pre-existence of souls " (Oxford, 1667), may 
be referred to as representing the other side. 
J. H. Horbius concludes his Bistoria Origeniana 
(Francofurti, 1670) with the words of Justinian, 
and holds that Origen may " fairly be called the 
fountain of all heresies " (p. 91). Other works 




are mentioned by Fabricius (Bibl. Or. vii. 241 ff.) 
It must be sufficient to refer generally to the 
accounts of Origen's life and opinions given by — 

Tillemont (Uemoiret, ill. Paris, 1695, ed. 2, 1701). 

Lardner (Credibility, p. ii. vol. ill. London, 1750; 
vol. 11. ed. Kippts). 

Cellller (Auteurs Sacrii, U. Paris, 1730). 

Marechal (Concordantia Patrum, Paris, 1739). 

Lumper (But. Patrum Theok Critica, lx. August, 
Vindob. 1792). 

Welch (Gesch. d. KeU. vll. vffl. Leipzig, 1762, ff.). 

Du Pin, Xouvelle BSbliothique des Auteurt BeeUs. 
torn. I. Puis, 1690. 

The histories of Mosheim (De reb. Christ, ante 
const. Comm., Helmst. 1753) and Schroeckh 
(Kirchen-Oesch., Leipzig, 1772-1803) contain 
useful materials. The analyses of Schramm 
(Anal. Patrum, Ang. Vind. 1780-96) are good : 
his literary notices are taken from Delarue. 

More recently Origen's life and doctrine has 
been discussed, with special reference to his 
historical position in the development of 
Christian thought, by— 

Guericke, De Sckda Alas. Catech., Halis Sax., 1825. 

Neander, Kirch. Gttchwhte. 

Tbomaslus, Origenes, NOrnberg, 1837. 

Redepenning, Origenes, Bonn, 1841-8. 

Moehler, Patrologie, Rrgemburg, 1840. 

Huber, Philos. d. JCirchenvater, Munchen, 1869. 

Schsff, Church History, New York, 1867. 

De Pressense, Hutoire des trois premiers sieclcs, 
Paris, 1858-77. 

Boehringer, Kirchengach. in Biogr. Element u. Ori- 
genes, Zurich, 1869, 2" Aufl. 

To these may be added — 

Joly, Etude sur Origins, Dijon, 1860. 

FreppeL Orighne, Paris, 1868. 

Denis, M. J., La Philosophic cVOrigene, Paris, 1884. 

The notice of Origen in Bitter's Qesch. d. 
Christ. Philos. 1858-9 is very meagre : that in 
Ueberweg's Qesch. d. Philos. is much more 
satisfactory. Unhappily Origen did not fall 
within Zeller's scope. 

II. Life. — The nationality and birthplace of 
Origen are uncertain. It is probable that he 
was born at Alexandria (Euseb. H. E. vi. 1), 
but it has not been recorded whether he was of 
Egyptian or Greek or mixed descent. The state- 
ment of Epiphanius, that he was " an Egyptian 
by race " (Haer. lxir. 1, Aiym-ws to? ytvti), is 
not decisive even if his authority were higher ; 
and the loose phrase of Porphyry, that he " was 
a Greek and reared in Greek studies " (Euseb. 
//. E. vi. 19), is in itself of little value, but the 
name of his father (Leonides) points in the same 
direction. His mother's name has not been pre- 
served. Is it possible that she was of Jewish 
descent ? Origen is said to have learnt Hebrew 
so successfully that in singing the psalms " he 
vied with his mother " (Hier. Ep. 39 (22), § 1). 
Origen was the eldest of seven sons (Euseb. 
H. E. vi. 2). Nothing however is known of 
his brothers. His fame probably overshadowed 
them ; and his father, though himself a martyr, 
was distinguished as "Leonides the father of 
Origen." • 

• This appears to be the meaning of the words of 
Euseblus (vi. 1), 6 Aryo^cvov 'Op. irarqp, which caused 
Tillemont difficulty: Memoircs, Orig. note il. Accord- 
ing to some late and insufficient authorities (Suidas, it. 
'O/nyirtif and some HSS. of Hier. de Fir. ill.) Leonides 
was a bishop. 


Digitized by 




The fall name of Origen was Origknks Ad- 
amantks. The name Origenet was borne by 
one contemporary philosopher of distinction,' 
and occurs elsewhere. Thus the name of 
" Aureliua Oi-igcnes, also called Apotlonius," a 
prytanis of Arsinoe, occurs in a Greek inscrip- 
tion set up in the city in A.D. 232-3 (Boeckh, 
Inscrr. fir. No. 4705). Another," M. Aureliva 
Apotlonius, also called Origme$, a Roman knight," 
is mentioned in another Greek inscription in the 
Vatican as having constructed a " private box " 
in some theatre (id. No. 6189 6). 

The name Leonides is found in an inscription 
at Kosseir (id. add. No. 4716 d") and in other 
places. There can be no doubt that Origenes 
(which is written in MSS. not unfrequently with 
the rough breathing) is formed from the name 
of the Egyptian deity Orus or Horns, popularly 
identified with Apollo. Such names (e.g. Diony- 
sius) were common among Christians. The name 
Adamantius (bishop of Athens) occurs in Boeckh, 
l.o. No. 9373. See also Euseb. H. E. vi. 14. 

The name AdamantiU8 has commonly been 
regarded as an epithet describing Origen'a un- 
conquerable endurance (Hier. Ep. 33 (29), § 3, 
where he also claims for Origen the epithet 
XaAJteVrtpos given to Varro), or for the invin- 
cible force of his arguments (Photius, Cod. 118). 
But the language of Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14, 
i yiroi ' ASa/iivTios Kal toOto "yip 1<v Ttf 'Clpi- 
ytpti Svofta) and of Jerome himself (D« Vir. III. 
54, Origenes qui et Adamantius) shews that it 
was a second name, such as is given in the cases 
quoted above, and not a mere adjunct. Epi- 
phanios characteristically misrepresents the 
truth when he speaks of Origen as having 
"given himself in vain the surname of Ada- 
mantius " (Hacr. lxiv. 73). 

The date of Origen's birth is fixed within very 
narrow limits by that of his father's martyrdom. 
Leonides suffered in the persecution of the tenth 
year of Severus (a.d. 202), and Origen at the 
time had not completed his seventeenth year 
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 2). He must have been born 
therefore a.d. 185-6, a date which is consistent 
with the further statement (Euseb. vii. 1) that 
he died in his sixty-ninth year, in the reign of 
Gallus (a.d. 251-254). In Origen we have the 
first record of a Christian boyhood, and he was 
" great from the cradle." His education was 
superintended by his father, who specially 
directed him to the stndy of Scripture, in addi- 
tion to the ordinary subjects of instruction (r; 
ray iyievKktuv muStla). The child entered 
into the study with such eager devotion that 
his inquiries into the deeper meaning of the 
words which he committed to memory caused 
his father perplexity, who, while he openly 
checked his son's premature curiosity, silently 
thanked God for the promise which he gave for 
the future. As years Went on Origen became 
the pupil of Pantaenns (after his return from 
India) and Clement, in whose school he met 
Alexander, afterwards bishop of Jerusalem 
(Euseb; H. E. vi. 14) with whom he then laid 
the foundation of that life-long friendship which 
supported him in his sorest trials. 

When Leonides was thrown into prison, Origen 
would have shared his fate if he had not been 

<• On this Origtnes, the Platonlst, see Zeller, Die Philo- 
tophie d. Qricchm, v. 407. 


hindered by the device of his mother. As he 
could do no more he addressed a letter to his 
father — his first recorded writing, still extant in 
the time of Eusebius— in which he prayed him 
to allow no thought for bis family to shake his 
resolution. Such an act shews at once the posi- 
tion of influence which Origen already enjoyed 
in his family and the power of his self-sacrifice. 
Leonides was put to death, and his property was 
confiscated. Upon this the young Origen seems 
to have fulfilled the promise which his words 
implied. Partly by the assistance of a pious 
and wealthy lady, and partly by teaching, he 
obtained all that he required for his own sup- 
port and (as may be concluded) for the needs of 
his mother and brothers. Already he collected 
a library. At first he gave lessons in literature ; 
but as the Christian school was now without a 
teacher, all having been scattered by the persecu- 
tion, he was induced to give instruction in the 
Faith. Thus in his eighteenth year he occupied, 
at first informally, the position which belonged 
to the head of the Christian school in Alexandria 
in a season of exceptional danger.* In this work 
he obtained such success that after no long time 
Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, definitely 
committed to him the office, which had been 
thrown upon him by circumstances. The charge 
decided the tenor of his life (Hier. de Vir. III. 
54, "decimo octavo aetatis suae anno Kcernxh- 
atuv opus aggressus, postea a 
locum dementis presbyteri confirmatus "). From 
this time Origen devoted himself exclusively to 
the office of a Christian teacher ; and to ensure 
his independence he sold his collection of classical 
writers for an annuity of four oboli (sixpence) a 
day, on which he lived for many years, refusing the 
voluntary contributions which his friends offered 
him (Euseb. H. E. vi. 3). His position at this 
time is a remarkable illustration of the freedom 
of the early church. He was a layman, and yet 
recognised as a leading teacher. His work was 
not confined within any district. Numbers of 
men and women flocked to his lectures, attracted 
in part by the stern simplicity of his life, which 
served as a guarantee of his sincerity. For he 
resolved to fulfil without reserve the precepts of 
the Gospel. For many years he went barefoot, 
and wore only a single robe (Matt. x. 10). He 
slept upon the ground. His food and sleep were 
rigorously limited (Euseb. B. E. vi. 3). Nor 
did his unmeasured zeal stop here. In the same 
spirit of sacrifice he applied to himself literally 
the words of Matt. xix. 12, though wishing to 
conceal the act from most of his friends. The- 
act however could not remain hid. It was. 
against the civil law (comp. Just. M. Ap. i. 29, 
Otto's note), and utterly at variance with the 
true instinct of the church, which at a later 
time found formal expression (Cone. Ific. can. 1, 
and Hefele's note). Origen's own comment on 
the words of the gospel which he had misunder- 
stood, is a most touching confession of his error 
(in Matt. torn. xv. 1 ff.).* But for the time the- 
purpose of the act was accepted as its excuse. 

e Theanecdote preserved by Epiphanlus(Z7<wr. lxiv. 1> 
of his proclaiming Christ on the steps of the temple of 
Serapis, when forced there by the heathen population, 
is probably to be referred to this date, 

4 Boohringer (Origenet, pp. ZS ff) endeavours to shew 
that the narrative Is a fable, but his arguments are not 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


And when the matter came to the ears of De- 
metrius, the bishop, so far from inflicting any 
punishment, urged him still more to devote him- 
self to the work of Christian instruction (Euseb. 
H. E. vi. 8). 

For twelre or thirteen years Origen was en- 
gaged in these happy and successful labours ; 
and it was during this period, in all probability, 
that he formed and partly executed his plan of 
a comparative view of the LXX in connexion 
with the other Greek versions of the Old Testa- 
ment, and with the original Hebrew text [Hex- 
apla], though the work was slowly elaborated 
as fresh materials came to his hands (Euseb. 
H. E. vi. 16). To fit himself the better for the 
work he learnt Hebrew, " contrary to the spirit 
of his years and race " (Hier. de Vir. HI. 54, con- 
tra aetatis gentisque suae naturam), though he 
seems to have found a fellow-student in his 
mother (Hier. Ep. 39 (22), § 1). From time to 
time he refers to interpretations which were 
given to him by his " Hebrew master " (De Princ. 
I 3, 4; iv. 26; i 'Efipaus, Gr. fr. 7); and 
Jerome says that he referred to " the Patriarch 
Huillus," as having given him information on 
many points (adv. Suf. i. § 13, comp. Set. in Ps. 
xi. p. 352, L. "lovWos). A short visit to Rome 
in the time of Zephyrinus, to see "the most 
ancient church of the Romans " (Euseb. H. E. 
vi. 14) and an authoritative call to Arabia (Euseb. 
H. E. vi 19) alone seem to have interrupted the 
fixed tenor of his life. Persecution tested the 
fruit of his teaching. He hod the joy of seeing 
martyrs trained in his school ; and his own 
escapes from the violence of the people was held 
to be due to the special protection of Providence 
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 4, f. 3). 

During the same period Origen devoted him- 
self with renewed vigour to the study of non- 
Christian thought, and attended the lectures of 
Ammonias Saccas (comp. Porphyry, ap. Euseb. 
H. 19 ; Theodoret, Grace, affect, cur. vi. 
p. 96).* Heretics and Gentiles attended his 
lectures, and he felt bound to endeavour to 
anderstand their opinions thoroughly, that he 
might the better correct them (comp. c. Celt. 
vi. 24). His conduct in this respect excited ill- 
will, but he was able to defend himself, ss he 
4id in a letter written at a later time (Ep. ap. 
Euseb. M. E. vi. 19), by the example of his pre- 
decessors and the support of his friends. 

So Origen's work grew beyond his single 
strength, and he associated Heraclas in the 
labours of the catechetical school. Heraclas 
had been one of his first converts and scholars, 
and the brother of a martyr (Euseb. H. E. vi. 3). 
He was a fellow-student with Origen under " his 
teacher of philosophy " (Ammonius Saccas) ; and 
when he afterwards became bishop of Alexandria 
he did not even then lay aside the dress or the 
reading of a philosopher (Euseb. H. E. vi. 19). 

At length, c. 215 AJX, a tumult of unusual 
violence (Euseb. H. E. vi. 19, oh OfUKpov Kara 
rifw sroAjr aVctppnrortf ivros woXifiov ; comp. Hero- 
dian. iv. 8, 9 ; Clinton, Fasti Bomani, i. 224 f.) 
forced Origen to withdraw from Alexandria and 
from Egypt. He took refuge in Palestine, at 

* Tbe difficulties and objections which have been urged 
in regard to this fact, from a supposed confusion of other 
persons bearing the names of Ammonius and Origen, have 
teen considered at length by L. KrUger in an essay In 
niaen's ZtUtchr.f. kit. Thai. 1843, 1. 4» ff. 


Caesarea. Here his reputation brought him into 
that position of prominence which became the 
occasion of his later troubles. His fellow pupil, 
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistca 
(Theotecnns ; Photius, Cod. 118), bishop of Cae- 
sarea, begged him to expound the Scriptures in 
the public services of the church, though he 
had not been ordained. Demetrius of Alexandria 
expressed strong disapprobation at a proceeding 
which he ventured to describe as unprecedented. 
Alexander and Theoctistus defended their conduct 
by precedents. Demetrius replied by action. He 
recalled Origen to Alexandria, and hastened his 
return by special envoys, deacons of the church 
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 19). 

The stay of Origen in Palestine was of some 
considerable length, and it seems most probable 
that it was during this time he made his famous 
visit to Mamaea, the mother of the emperor Alex- 
ander (Euseb. H. E. vi. 21), who was herself a 
native of Syria.' 

Some time after his return to Alexandria 
(c. 219), Origen entered upon a new form of 
work, the written exposition of Scripture. This 
was not the result of his own choice, but was due 
in a great measure to the influence of Arobrosius 
[Ambrosius], whom he had rescued not long 
before from the heresy of Valentinus, or, as Jerome 
says, of Marcion (Hier. de Vir. III. 56). Am- 
brosius not only urged him to the task, bnt 
amply supplied him with the means of fulfilling 
it. More than seven shorthand writers (rax»- 
ypdqioi) were provided to take down his com- 
ments, and other scribes were ready to copy out 
fairly what they had written (Euseb. H. E. vi. 

These literary occupations considerably cur- 
tailed Origen's work in the catechetical school. 
Some years before he had, as we have seen, as- 
sociated Heraclas with himself in the conduct of 
it, assigning to him the introductory instruction 
of students (Euseb. H. E. vi. 15). He could 
now therefore withdraw in a great measure from 
the charge without disturbing the method of 
teaching. At the same time the first parts of 
his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John marked 
him out more decisively than before as n teacher 
in the church even more than in the school. 
But the exhibition of this new power was accom- 
panied by other signs of a bold originality which 
might well startle those who were unfamiliar 
with tbe questionings of philosophy. The books 
On First Principles, which seem to have been 
written spontaneously, made an epoch in Christian 
speculation, as the Commentary on St. John made 
an epoch in Christian interpretation. Under 
such circumstances it is not surprising that 
Demetrius yielded, in the words of Euscbius, to 
the infirmity of human nature (B. E. vi. 8), and 
wished to check the boldness and the influence 
of the layman. It became clear that Origen 
must seek somewhere else than in Alexandria the 
full sanction and free scope for his Scriptural 
studies. He did not however precipitate the 
separation from a place where he had laboured 

f Mnmaea was probably at Antloch In 218. Clinton 
places the visit during Origen's later visit 326 (F. R. i. 
239), on tbe assumption that Eusebtas states that tbe 
visit took place "In the reign of Alexander and in the 
episcopate of Fhlletus j " but the language of Euseblus. 
due regard being had to his desultory style of narrative, 
does not require this Interpretation. 

H 2 

Digitized by 




for more than fire and twenty yean. The oc- 
casion came in an invitation to visit Achaia for 
the purpose, as it seems, of combating some false 
opinions which had arisen there (Hier. de Virr. 
III. 54). The exact date is uncertain, bnt it was 
probably between 226 and 230. Origen availed 
himself of this call to visit Caesarea. It was 
natural that he should seek counsel from his 
oldest friends as to his future course ; and the 
invitation to Achaia seems to have brought his 
relations with Demetrius to a crisis. Photius, 
on the authority of Pamphilus' " Apology " 
{Cod. 118), says that he went "without the 
consent (or even contrary to the judgment) of 
his own bishop " (x«f>'r ■")$ tov oucelov yv&pris 
im<ric6irov). Jerome again states that he was 
furnished with " commendatory letters " (I.e. sub 
testimonio ecclesiasticae epistolae). He may 
therefore have gone to Caesarea to consider 
whether he should accept the invitation, and, 
in that case, to obtain the proper authorization. 
No record remains of the deliberations which took 
place. But the meeting issued in the ordination 
of Origen as presbyter " by the bishops there " 
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 23), Theoctistus of Caesarea and 
Alexander of Jerusalem (Hier. de Virr. 111. 54 ; 
Photius, Cod. 118). After taking this decisive 
step Origen continued his journey to Greece. 
He visited Ephesus (Ep. fragm. ap. Ruf. Apol., 
Dclarue, i. p. 6) and stayed some time at Athens, 
and during this stay it is not unlikely that he 
heard some of the teachers of philosophy there 
(Epiph. Boer, lxiv. 1). At length, having com- 
pleted his mission, he returned to Alexandria. 

In returning to Alexandria Origen could not 
have been unprepared for the reception which 
awaited him from Demetrius. It is by no means 
unlikely that Demetrius had shewn clear un- 
willingness to admit him to the priesthood. He 
may have regarded the act which had appeared 
venial in the lay catechist as a fatal bar to ordina- 
tion, according to the tenor of later canons. He 
may perhaps have taken exception to some of 
the details of Origen's teaching. But at any rate 
the fact that Origen received orders from Pales- 
tinian bishops without his consent, and probably 
against his judgment, might be construed as 
a direct challenge of his authority. Origen at 
once perceived that he must retire before the 
rising storm. The preface to the sixth book 
of the Commentary on St. John shews how 
deeply he felt the severance of old ties and the 
hostility of former colleagues. But there was 
no choice. In a.d. 231 he left Alexandria never 
to return.* The act however was his own ; and 
his influence to the last is shewn by the fact, 
that he " left the charge of the catechetical 
school " to his coadjutor Heraclas (Euseb. B. E. 
vi. 26).» 

< In Euseb. B. B. vi. 26 the reading Smutw is better 
supported than &o&*kiltov. 

h It Is hardly necessary to refer to the monstrous 
story related by Eplphanius (Haer. lxiv. 2). If any one 
cares to consider it. It Is enough to refer to Delarue's note 
on Huet's Origeniana, I. 2, $ 13. 

The passage quoted by Justinian, as from Peter of 
Alexandria, In his letter to Menas, In which he is repre- 
sented as saying that " the frantic Origen " caused great 
trials to H.>raclas and Demetrius, is not of weightier 

authority. The passage occurs In a speech in the martyr- 
dom of 1>elc , iAeta siMerat MJgnf ^ t 

uuct, t. c. 9 15. 


It is difficult to trace the different stages in 
the condemnation which followed. Eusebius 
treated of the matter at length in his " Apology " 
(//. E. vi. 23), and therefore thought it unneces- 
sary to repeat in his " History " what he had 
already given in detail. The fragmentary notices 
of writers at second or third hand are therefore 
all that remain. Photius (Cod. 118) following 
the " Apology " of Pamphilus and Eusebius, gives 
the most intelligible and consistent account. Ac- 
cording to him Demetrius, completely alienated 
from Origen by his ordination, collected a synod 
of " bishops and a few presbyters " (htuncmtmv 
ko( rurnv TpfofivTfpav'), in which it was decided 
that Origen should leave Alexandria and not be 
allowed to stay or teach there. He was not how- 
ever deposed from the priesthood, though it is 
implied that Demetrius had made a proposition 
to that effect. Demetrius was dissatisfied with 
the result ; and combining with some Egyptian 
bishops (without presbyters) he afterwards ex- 
communicated Origen (koI itji itfmo-iyris i»«ir»J- 
pv{e), and those who had voted with him before 
now subscribed this new sentence. Jerome de- 
scribes with greater severity the spirit of Deme- 
trius' proceedings, and adds that " he wrote on 
the subject to the whole world "(De Tir. HI. 54) 
and obtained a judgment against Origen from 
Rome (Ep. 33 (29), § 4).' 

So far the facts are tolerably clear, but in the 
absence of trustworthy evidence, it is impossible 
to tell on what points the condemnation of Origen 
really turned. Demetrius unquestionably laid 
great stress on formal irregularities (Euseb. 
H. E. vi. 8), and it is possible that the sentence 
against him was based on these, thongh Origen's 
opinions may have been displeasing to many. 
Such a view finds support in the fact, that no 
attempt was made to reverse the judgment after 
the death of Demetrius, which followed very 
shortly, and perhaps within three years, when 
Heraclas, the pupil and colleague of Origen, suc- 
ceeded to the episcopate. Nor again was any- 
thing done by Dionysius, the successor of Hera- 
clas, another devoted scholar of Origen, who still 
continued his intercourse with his former master 
(Euseb. B. E. vi. 46). 

Whatever may have been the grounds of 
Origen's condemnation, the judgment of the 
Egyptian synod was treated with absolute dis- 
regard by the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, 
Phoenicia, and Achnea (Hier. Ep. 33), and Origen 
defended himself warmly (Hier. Apol. adv. Ruf. 
ii. 18). He soon afterwards settled at Caesarea, 
which became for more than twenty years, up to 
his death, the centre of his labours. It had 
indeed not a few of the advantages of Alexandria, 
as a great seaport, the civil capital, and the 
ecclesiastical metropolis of its district. 

At Caesarea Origen found ungrudging sym- 
pathy and help for his manifold labours. Alex- 
ander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea 
remained devoted to him ; and Firmilian of 
Caesarea in Cappadocia was no less zealous in 
seeking his instruction (Euseb. B. E. vi. 27; 

■ The statement quoted by Jutlnlan, that Origen was 
expelled by Heraclas, Is wholly unworthy of credit. It 
probably arose from the fact that Heraclas did not recal 
him. The reading tatiiamr. In Euseb. H. B. vl. 26, may 
be a trace of the belief in this apocryphal statement. 
Conip. Hue*, Origeniana, I. 2, y is, and Delano's 

Digitized by 



Uier. ds Ftr. HI. 54, din Caesareae in Sanctis 
Scripturis ab eo eruditus est). Ambrosius was 
with him to stimulate and maintain his literary 
efforts. He formed afresh something of a cate- 
chetical school ; and the highest forms of his 
philosophical teaching were exercised by the 
presence of a continual succession of distin- 
guished students. At the same time he was 
unwearied in the public exposition of Scripture. 
It was his practice to explain it popularly to 
mixed congregations in the church, to Christians 
and to catechumens (Horn, in Ezech. vi. § 5). As 
a role he gave these lectures on Wednesdays and 
Fridays (Socr. H. E. v. 22, if nrpiSi jcdl rg 
\eyofUry -rafxuTKfvp), but in practice he gave 
them daily, and at times oftener than once a day. 
His subjects were sometimes taken from the 
lessons {Horn, in Num. iv. 1 ; t'n 1 Sam. ii. § 1), 
and sometimes specially prescribed to him by an 
authoritative request (Ham. in Ezech. xiii. 1). 
His aim was the edification of the people gene- 
rally (Bom. in Lev. vii. 1 ; m Jvd. viii. 3) ; and 
not unfrequently he was constrained to speak, 
as he wrote, with come reserve, on the deeper 
mysteries of the Faith (Horn, in Num. iv. 3 ; in 
Lev. xiii. 3 ; in Ezech. i. 3 ; in Bom. vii. 13, 
p. 147 L ; viii. 11, p. 272 ; comp. Horn, in Jos. 
xxiii. 4 *./. ; t'n Gen. xii. 1, 4). 

These labours were interrupted by the perse- 
cution of Maximinus (a.d. 235-237). Ambrosius 
and Protectetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, were 
among the victims. Origen addressed to them 
hi* Exhortation to Martyrdom, while they were 
in prison. He himself escaped (Euseb. H. E. 
vi. 28). During part of the time for which the 
persecution continued he seems to have been with 
Firmilian in Cappadocia, and while there is said 
to have enjoyed the hospitality of a Christian 
lady, Juliana, who had some of the books of 
Syromachus, the translator of the Old Testament 
(comp. Hier. I.e. Firmilianus. . .cum omni Cap- 
padocia earn invitavit et diu tenuit. Pallad. Hist. 
Lous. 147). 

In 238 or perhaps in 237, k Origen was again 
at Caesarea, and Gregory (Thaumaturgus) de- 
livered the Farewell Address, which is the most 
vivid picture left of the method and influence of 
the great Christian master. In this the scholar 
recounts, with touching devotion, the course 
along which be had been guided by the man 
to whom he felt that he owed his spiritual life. 
He had come to Syria to study Roman law in 
the school of Berytus, but on his way there he 
met with Origen, and at once felt that he had 
found in him the wisdom for which he was 
seeking. The day of that meeting was to him, 
in his own words, the dawn of a new being : 
his soul clave to the master whom he recognised, 
and he surrendered himself gladly to his guid- 
ance. As Origen spoke, he kindled within the 
young advocate's breast a love for the Holy 
Word, the most lovely of all objects, and for him- 
aelf the Word's herald. "This love," Gregory 
adds, "induced me to give up country and friends, 
the aims which I had proposed to myself, the 
study of law of which I was proud. I had but 

* Drieeke, Der Brief d. Oria. an Gregmiat, Jahrb. f. 
Protest Thai. 1881, s. 106. Driseke gives good reasons 
lor dating Origen's letter to Gregory in 235-6 (not in 
240 from Cappadocia, when Gregory had retired to Alex- 



one passion, philosophy, and the godlike man 
who directed me in the pursuit of it " (c. 6). 

Origen's first care, Gregory says, was to make 
the character of a pupil bis special study. In 
this he followed the example of Clement (Clem. 
Strom, i. 1, 8, p. 320, P). He ascertained, with 
delicate and patient attention, the capacities, the 
faults, the tendencies of those whom he had to 
teach. Rank growths of opinion were cleared 
away : weaknesses were laid open : every effort 
was used to develope endurance, firmness, pa- 
tience, thoroughness. " In true Socratic fashion 
he sometimes overthrew us by argument," Gre- 
gory writes, " if he saw us restive and starting 
out of the course... The process was at first 
disagreeable to us and painful ; but so he purified 
us . . . and . . . prepared us for the reception of 
the words of truth . . . ," " by probing us and 
questioning us, and offering problems for our 
solution " (c. 7). In this way Origen taught his 
scholars to regard language as designed, not to 
furnish material for display, but to express truth 
with the most exact accuracy ; and logic as 
powerful, not to secure a plausible success, but 
to test beliefs with the strictest rigour. 

This was the first stage of intellectual disci- 
pline, the accurate preparation of the instru- 
ments of thought. In the next place, Origen led 
his pupils to apply them first to the "lofty and 
divine and most lovely" study of external nature. 
Here he stood where we stand still, for he made 
Geometry the sure and immovable foundation 
of his teaching, and from this rose step by step 
to the heights of heaven and the most sublime 
mysteries of the universe (c. 8). Gregory's lan- 
guage implies that Origen was himself a student 
of physics ; as, in some degree, the true theo- 
logian must be. The lessons of others, he writes, 
or his own observation, enabled him to explain 
the connexion, the differences, the changes of the 
objects of sense. Such investigations served to 
shew man in his true relation to the world. A 
rational feeling for the vast grandeur of the ex- 
ternal order, " the sacred economy of the uni- 
verse," as Gregory calls it, was substituted for 
the ignorant and senseless wonder with which it 
is commonly regarded. 

But Physics were naturally treated by Origen 
as a preparation and not as an end. Moral 
Science came next ; and here he laid the greatest 
stress upon the method of experiment. His aim 
was not merely to analyse and to define and to 
classify feelings and motives, though he did this, 
but to form a character. For him ethics were a 
life, and not only a theory. The four cardinal 
virtues of Plato, practical wisdom, self-control, 
righteousness, courage, seemed to him to require 
for their maturing careful and diligent intro- 
spection and culture. And here he gave a com- 
mentary upon his teaching. His discipline lay 
even more in action than in precept. His own 
conduct was in his scholar's minds a more in- 
fluential persuasive than his arguments. 

So it was, Gregory continues, that Origen was 
the first teacher who really led me to the pur- 
suit of Greek philosophy, by bringing speculation 
into » vital union with practice. In him I saw 
the inspiring example of one wise at once and 
holy. The noble phrase of older masters gained 
a distinct meaning for the Christian disciple. 
In failure and weakness he was enabled to per- 
ceive that the end of all was " to become like to 

Digitized by 




God with • pure mind, and to draw near to Him 
and to abide in Him " (c. 12). 

Guarded and guided by this conviction, Origen 
encouraged his scholars in theology to look for 
help in all the works of human genius. They 
were to examine the writings of philosophers 
and poets of every nation, the atheists alone 
excepted, with faithful candour and wise catho- 
licity. For them there was to be no sect, no 
party. And in their arduous work they had 
ever at hand, in their master, a friend who knew 
the difficulties of the ground to be traversed. 
If they were bewildered in the tangled mazes of 
conflicting opinions, he was ready to lead them 
with a firm hand: if they were in danger of 
being swallowed up in the quicksands of shifting 
error, he was near to lift them up to the sure 
restiug-place which he had himself found (c. 14). 

Even yet the end was not reached. The hier- 
archy of sciences was not completed till Theology 
with her own proper gifts crowned the succes- 
sion which we have followed hitherto, Logic, 
Physics, Ethics. New data corresponded with 
the highest philosophy, and Origen found in the 
Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Spirit 
the final and absolute spring of Divine Truth. 
It was in this region that Gregory felt his 
master's power to be supreme. Origen's sovereign 
command of the mysteries of " the oracles of 
God " gave him perfect boldness in dealing with 
all othur writings. " Therefore," Gregory adds, 
" there was no subject forbidden to us, nothing 
hidden or inaccessible. We were allowed to be- 
come acquainted with every doctrine, barbarian 
or Greek, on things spiritual or civil, divine and 
human ; traversing with all freedom, and inves- 
tigating the whole circuit of knowledge, and 
satisfying ourselves with the full enjoyment of 
all the pleasures of the soul . . . " (c. 15). 

Such in meagre outline was, as Gregory tells 
us, the method of Origen. He describes what 
he knew and what his hearers knew. There is 
no parallel to the picture in ancient times. And 
when every allowance has been made for the 
partial enthusiasm of a pupil, the view which it 
offers of a system of Christian training actually 
realised exhibits a type which we cannot hope to 
surpass. The ideal of Christian education and 
the ideal of Christian philosophy were fashioned 
together. Under that comprehensive and loving 
discipline Gregory, already trained in heathen 
schools, first learnt, step by step, according to 
his own testimony, what the pursuit of philo- 
sophy truly was, and came to know the solemn 
duty of forming opinions which were to be not 
the amusement of a moment, but the solid foun- 
dations of life-long work. 

The method of Origen, such as Gregory has 
described it, in all its breadth and freedom, was 
forced upon him by what he held to be the 
deepest law of human nature. It may be true 
(and he admitted it) that we are, in our present 
state, but poorly furnished for the pursuit of 
knowledge, but he was never weary of proclaim- 
ing that we are at least born to engage in the 
endless search. If we see some admirable work 
of man's art, he says, we are at once eager to 
investigate the nature, the manner, the end of 
its production ; and the contemplation of the 
works of God stirs us with an incomparably 
greater longing to learn the principles, the 
method, the purpose of creation. " This desire, 


this passion, has without doubt," he continues, 
" been implanted in as by God. And as the eye 
seeks the light, as our body craves food, so our 
mind is impressed with the characteristic and 
natural desire of knowing the truth of God and 
the causes of what we observe." Such a desire, 
since it is a divine endowment, carries with it 
the promise of future satisfaction. In our pre- 
sent life we may not be able to do more, by the 
utmost toil, than obtain some small fragments 
from the infinite treasures of divine knowledge, 
still the concentration of our souls upon the 
lovely vision of truth, the occupation of our 
various faculties in lofty inquiries, the very 
ambition with which we rise above our actual 
powers, is in itself fruitful in blessing, and tits 
us better for the reception of wisdom hereafter 
at some later stage of existence. Now we draw 
at the best a faint outline, a preparatory sketch 
of the features of Truth : the true and living 
colours will be added there. Perhaps, he con- 
cludes most characteristically, that is the mean- 
ing of the words, " to every one that hath shall 
be given ; " by which we are assured that he 
who has gained in this life some faint outline of 
truth and knowledge will have it completed in 
the age to come with the beauty of the perfect 
image (De Princ. ii. 11, 4). 

While Caesarea remained Origen's permanent 
home he visited different parts of Palestine ; 
Jerusalem,' Jericho, the valley of the Jordan 
(Tom. vi. in Joh. § 24) ; Sidon, where he made 
some stay (Horn, in Josh. xvi. § 2), partly at 
least to investigate " the footsteps of Jesus, and of 
His disciples, and of the prophets" (in Joh. I. cj. 
He also went again to Athens and continued there 
for some time, being engaged on his Commentaries 
(Euseb. B. E. vi. 32). Two visits to Arabia were 
of more characteristic interest. In the first he 
went to confer with Beryllus of Bostra, who had 
advanced false views on the Incarnation (Euseb. 
H. E. vi. 33) ; and in the second to meet some 
errors on the doctrine of the resurrection (id. 
vi. 37). In both cases he was specially invited, 
and in both cases he justified his reputation by 
persuading those whom he controverted to aban- 
don their opinions.™ 

Origen's energy now rose to its full power. 
Till he was sixty (A..D. 246) he had forbidden his 
unwritten discourses to be taken down. Ex- 
perience then at length enabled him to withdraw 
the prohibition, and most of his homilies are due 
to reports made afterwards. The Books against 
Celsus, and the Commentaries on St. Matthew, be- 
long to the same period, and shew, in different 
directions, the maturity of his vigour. 

Thus his varied activity continued till the 
persecution of Decius in 250. The preceding 
reign of Philip had favoured the growth of 
Christianity ; and there is no sufficient reason 
to question the fact of Origen's correspondence 
with the emperor and his wife Severs (Euseb. 
H. E. vi. 36). Such intercourse marked Origen 
out for attack to Philip's conqueror and auc- 

> Perhaps the story given by Epiphanlus (Haer. lxiv. 3) 
of bis reading PS. 1. 16, when constrained to address 
the church there, and then closing the book with tears 
while all wept about him, may be a reminiscence of 
something which happened daring this time. 

d Specimens of his oral controversy with a Jew are 
preserved in c. Oris. L 48, 66 1 

Digitized by 



cesser. His friend Alexander of Jerusalem died 
in prison. He himself suffered a variety of tor- 
tares, probably at Tyre,— chains, the iron collar, 
and the rack, bat his constancy baffled all the 
efforts of his enemies (Euseb. //. E. vi. 39). Ho 
was threatened with the stake, and a report 
gained currency in later times that his suffer- 
ings were crowned by death (Photius, Cod. 118, 
p. 159). Daring this sharp trial his former pupil 
Dionysius, now bishop of Alexandria, addressed 
to him a letter on martyrdom (Euseb. H. E. vi. 
46). The testimony is valuable as shewing that 
the old affection was still alive, in spite of long 
separation. Origen himself described his suffer- 
ings and his consolations in letters which Euse- 
bius characterizes " as full of help to those who 
seed encouragement " (//. E. vi. 39). 

The death of Decius (251, Clinton, F. E. i. 270), 
after a reign of two years, set Origen free. But 
his health must have been broken by the hard- 
ships which he had endured. He died at Tyre, 
in the next year (253), "having completed 
seventy years save one " (Euseb. H. E. vii. 1 ; 
Hieron. Ep. 65 ad Pammach.). Origen was 
buried in the city where he died (William of 
Tyre (c. 1180), Hut. xiii. 1: "haec (Tyrus) et 
Origenis corpus occultat sicut oculata fide etiam 
hodie licet inspicere"),and his tomb was honoured 
as long as the city survived. When a cathedral, 
named after the Holy Sepulchre, was built there, 
his body is said to have occupied the place of 
greatest honour, being enclosed in the wall be- 
hind the high altar (Cotovicus (1598), Itin. 
Hier. p. 121 : " pone altare maximum magni 
Origenis corpus conditum ferunt"). The same 
church received, in a later age (a.d. 1190), the 
remains of Barbarossa; but the name of the 
great theologian prevailed over the name of the 
great warrior. Burchard, who visited Tyre in 
the last quarter of the 13th century (c. 1283), 
taw the inscription in Origen's memory in a 
building which was amazing for its splendour. 
<Burchardus, Sescript. Terrao Sanctae, p. 25, ed. 
Laurent. : " Origenes ibidem in ecclesia sancti 
sepnlcri reqaiescit in muro conclusus. Cujus 
tit ulam ibidem vidi " (the edition of 1587 adds et 
leg*). "Sunt ibi columpnae marmoreae et aliorum 
lapidnm tarn magnae, quod stupor est videre.") 
Before the close of the century the city was 
wasted by the Saracens ; but if we may trust 
the words of a traveller at the beginning of the 
16th century (c 1520), the inscription was still 
preserved on "a marble column sumptuously 
adorned with gold and jewels." (Bart, de Sali- 
gniaco, Itin. Hier. ix. 10: "In templo sancti 
sepnlcri Origenis doctOTis ossa magno in honore 
servantor, quorum titulos est in columnn mar- 
morea magno sumptu gemmarum et auri.") It 
is not unlikely, I fear, that this statement is a 
false rendering of Burchard 's notice. Burchard'i 
book was very widely known in the 16th cen- 
tury. The statements of Adrichonius (Tlieatr. 
T. S. Jr. Aser, 84), which are repeated by Huet 
and others, have no independent value whatever. 
Not long after, the place where Origen lay was 
only known by tradition. The tradition however 
still lingers about the ruins of the city ; for it 
is said that the natives point out the spot where 
u Oriunus " lies under a vault, the relic of an 
ancient church, now covered by their huts. 
Prutx, Am PhBnicien, 219, 306, quoted by 
Piper, Zeitschr. fir Kirchengesch. 1876, p. 208. 



Into the later fortunes of Origen's teaching 
we do not enter. It is enough to say that his 
fate after death was like his fate during life : he 
continued to witness not in vain to noble truths. 
His influence was sufficiently proved by the per- 
sistent bitterness of his antagonists, and there 
are few sadder pages in church history than the 
record of the Origenistic controversies. But in 
spite of errors which it was easy to condemn, 
his characteristic thoughts survived in the works 
of Hilary and Ambrose and Jerome, and in his 
own Homilies, to stir later students in the West. 
His Homilies had indeed a very wide circulation 
in the middle ages in their Latin translation ; 
and it would be interesting to trace their effect 
upon mediaeval commentators down to the time 
when Erasmus wrote to Colet in 1504 : " Origenis 
operum bonam partem evolvi ; quo pnteceptore 
mini videor non-nullum fecisso operae pretium ; 
aperit enim fontes quosdam ct rationes indicat 
nrtis theologicae." That however cannot be 
done here. [Oiugenistic Controversies.] 

III. Chronology op Wouks. — The works of 
Origen, of which some notice has been pre- 
served, were produced, as far as can be ascer- 
tained, in the following chronological order. 
The titles of those which still remain, wholly 
or in part (otherwise than in isolated frag- 
ments), in the original, or in a translation, 
are printed in capitals. 

1. Before Origen's removal from Alexandria 
(A.D. 231). 

The commencement of the Hiqupla. 
Commentary on the Canticles. 'YironnjtioTa 
(perhaps uot published : Euseb. B.E. vi. 18). 

228-331. CoHUEKTAKT (Tojik) OX THS GOSPEL OF St. 

Jonx (Books i.-v.), Euseb. B. E. vl. 24. 
Commentaries on PS. L-xxv. (Euseb. B. B. 

Commentaries on Genesis, Books i.-viil. 

(Euseb. Z. c). 
On the Resurrection (two books), mentioned 

in tbo Commentaries on tbe Lamentations 

(Euseb. B. E. vl. 24). 
Commentaries on the Lamentations (five 

books remained in the time or Enseblus, 

B. E. I. c). 
Commentaries on Exodus, books 1. li. ■ 
Ox riasT, four books (Euseb. 

B. E. vl. 24). 
Jditcdlanies (Srpopantt), ten books (Euseb. 

I.e.). Comp. Tom. in Joh. xiii. 45; Hier. 

Praef. ad Gal. ; Comm. on Dan. xiii. ; Ep. 

ad August. cxlL 6 ; ad Pammaclt. lxxxlv. 
Ox Pbater (date uncertain). 
On frct-v>ill (the date Is doubtful : comp. in 

Bam. vii. } I64 Cramer, Catena, 1 Pet. 1. 4). 

2. After Origen's withdrawal to Caesarea 

Commentaries (Homilies) on 1 dor. (before 

Coram, on St. Lake). 
Homilies on Deuteronomy. 
Commentaries on St. Luke (Ave books): Hier. 

Prol. Bom. in Luc. 
Homilies ox St. Luke. 
212-238. Commextakies oh St. Johx continued, 

Books vi. IT. (Euseb. B. E. vi. 28). 
235-6. Letter to Gregory of Nco-Caesarea. 

Commentaries on Generis, Books ix.-xli. (xllL). 
Mystical Homilies on Genesis. 
335. Exhobtatiox to Mabttbdoh (Euseb. B. E. 

Vi. 28). 
Homilies (nine) on Judges (date uncertain; 

before Ccram. on Canticles). 

Digitized by 




235. HojiiLiES (nine) ox Isaiah (date uncertain). 
Commentaries on Isaiah (thirty books, ex- 
tending to "the vision of the beasts in the 
wilderness:*' extant in the time of Eusc* 
blus, H. E. vL 32). 
c.238-240. Commentaries on Esekitl, twenty-flve books 
on the whole prophet, finished at Athens 
(Euseb. I.e.) 
0. 210. Letteb to Julius AraicAxus on the Greek 
additions to Daniel. 


written at Athens, the remaining five at 
Caesarca (Euseb. 2. c). 
C. SU. Homilies (kise) os Psalms xxxvl.-xxxvili. 
- To this period may probably be assigned the 
Commentaries and notes on Exodus and 
Leviticus : the Commentaries on Isaiah 
and the Minor Prophets: the Notes on 
lumbers: the Homilies and detached notes 
on the Historical Books : the completion of 
the Commentary on the Psalms. 
after 214. Homilies taken down from bis extempore 
addresses (Euseb. IT. B. vl. 36) on the first 
four books of the Pentateuch, on Joshua, 
on Judges (doubtful), en Jeremiah (pro- 
bably), on Ezekikl. 
Conn kntaiiies (fifteen books) ox the Epistle 


Hexafla finished (Eplph. depond. et stent. 

H. E. vl. 36). 

Letters to Fabianus and others (Euseb. I. c). 

Commentaries (three books) on 1 Thess., and 
(perhaps) the Commentaries on Gakttiam, 
Ephesians, the other Epistles of St. Paul, 
and on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
210. The eight Books aoaixst Celsus (Euseb. 
S. E. vl. 36). 

Pamphilus made a collection of Origen's writ- 
ings in the library at Caesarea, transcribing a 
great part of them with his own hand (Hier. 
de I't'r. HI. 75). In the next century the library 
had fallen to decay, and it was restored by 
Euzoius, bishop of the city (id. 113). A relic 
of it remains in the Coislin MS. (H, of St. 
Paul's Epistles), which is said to have been 
collated with a copy at Caesarea written by 

IV. Writings. 

The multitudeof Origen's writings was a marvel 
to later scholars, and even a cause of anxious 
thought to himself (PAiVoc. c. v.). Epiphanius 
says (Haer. lxiv. 63) that in popular reports 
(0 fSerat) no less than 6000 works were 
ascribed to him. Jerome denies the trnth of his 
statement (Ep. lxxxii. 7), and brings down the 
number to a third (Adv. Ruf. ii. c. 22 ; cf. c 13). 
It is not unlikely (comp. Redepenning, in 
Niedner's Zeitschrift, 1851, 67 f.) that there was 
some early error in the cipher used by Eusebius 
in his Life of Pamphilus, from whom others 
drew their information (as of Stigma, 6000, for 
Sampi, 600) ; but the question is of no moment. 
The fact of the voluminousness of Origen's works 
does not depend upon determining their number. 
His works will be noticed in the following 
order : A. Exegetical, pp. 104-18 ; B. Dogma- 
tical, pp. 119-122 ; C. Apologetic, pp. 122-4 ; 
D. Practical, p. 124 ; F. Letters, p. 125 ; G. 
Philocalia, pp. 125-6.* 

• Jerome, in a letter addressed to Paula about 384, of 
which parts have been preserved by Rufinns (Apol. II. 
20 ; Hler. Ep. xxxlil.), compares the writings of Orlgen 
with those of the most voluminous classical writers, Varro 


A. Exegetical Writings. 

Epiphanius states, in general terms, that 
Origen undertook to comment on all the books 
of Scripture (Haer. lxiv. 3). Such a statement 
from such a man is of very little value, but in- 
dependent and exact evidence goes far to confirm, 
it. In the following sections a short account 
will be given, in the common order of the books 
of Scripture, of Origen's labours upon them. 

His exegetical writings, it must be noted, are 
of three kinds: detached Notes (Zxo', otj- 
IMiiads, in the narrower sense, excerpta, com- 
muticvm interpretandi genus), Homilies addressed 
to popular audiences ('OfuXitu, Tractalua), and 
complete and elaborate. Commentaries (To/««, 
<rnp(uier*.is in the wider sense, volumina). Comp. 
Hier. tit Ezech. Prol. ; Praef. Cmnm. in Matt. ; 
Rutin. Praef. in Num. 

1. Writings on the Old Testament. 

i. The Pentateuch. 


Origen, according to Eusebius, wrote twelve 
books of Commentaries (To'/u>i) on Genesis, of 
which the first eight were written before he left 
Alexandria (H. E. vi. 24). Jerome gives the 
number of books as thirteen (Ruf. Apol. ii. 20), 
and mentions that the thirteenth book contained 
a discussion of Gen. iv. 15. In c. Cels. v. 49, 
Origen refers to his work on Genesis " from the 
beginning of the book to v. 1 ; " and there is no- 
evidence that his detailed commentary went 

The two books of mystical Homilies (Ruf. 
Apol. ii. 20) seem to have been distinct from 
the seventeen homilies which remain in a Latin 
translation ; and the notice of Melchizedek, to 
which Jerome refers (Ep. ad Evang. 72), was 
probably found in them. (14 " Books " on 
Genesis ; 2 books " localium [moralium] ome- 
liarum ; " 17 Homilies.— H. C.) 

Of these writings there remain : 


(1) On Gen. L 2 ; Fragm. of Tom. iii. on Gen. 
i. 14 ; i. 16 f. 

Huet, 1. 1-W. 
Delarue," U. 1-24. 

and Didymus the grammarian (Chalcenteros) j and after 
giving a catalogue of Origen's works, concludes: ** Vide- 
tisne et Graecos pariter et Latinos unlus labors 

The catalogue In the common texts is reduced to a few 
lines ; but Sir T. Phillips was fortunate enough to find a 
copy of the letters in a MS. of the 12th century at Arras* 
in which the list of the works of Varro and Origen Is 
given In full. The catalogue of Origen's writings has 
been reprinted, from a copy privately circulated by Sir T. 
Phillips, with a short notice by Redepenning, In Niedner's 
Zeitschrtft, 1861, 66 ff. It has not seemed worth while to 
reprint the catalogue at length, but 1 have added under 
the different heads the testimony of the catalogue with 
the letters H. C. 

The list does not include the Book against Celtus, or 
the address on Prayer; the latter, however, may have 
been included In the collections of letters. On the other 
hand, it contains the title of a BomUy on Peace, two 
Homilies, de jejunis de monogamis et trigamis, and of 
two Homilies at Tarsus. It also mentions the Dialogue 
with Candidas the Yalentinian, which was known to 
Jerome (Apol. adv. Ruf. ii. 18 f.) 

° It may be worth while to notice that the name is 
always spelt as one word In the titles and notices In tha 
French as well as in the Latin text. 

Digitized by 



(2) Fragm. of Tom. iii. (Euseb. H. E. iii. 1); 
notes from Catenae ; Eragm. of Horn. ii. 

Delarae, ii. 23-53, 60 ff. 

(3) Additional notes. 

Galland, BMiotk. xtv. app. 3 ff. The additional 
notes from Galland, and some of those from 
Mai, with one note from Cramer's Catena, are 
given in a supplementary volume of Migne. 

(1) and (2) are given by Lommatisch. Till. 1-104. 


Seventeen Homilies, of which the last is im- 
perfect, translated by Rufinus. The transla- 
tion, as in other cases, is sometimes falsely 
ascribed to Jerome, e.g. in Merlin's edition. 

Delarae, ii. 52-110. 
Lotnmatxsch, vlli. 105-298. 

The MSS. of the Latin Homilies on the books 
of the Old Testament, it may be observed once 
for all, are very abundant. The most interesting 
which I hare seen is one in the British Museum, 
Add. 15,307, written in 1163, which deserves 

One of the fragments of the Commentary on 
Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of the 
theory of fate in connexion with Gen. i. 16 
(quoted by Euseb. Praep. Ev. vi. ell, and given 
in Phtloc. 23 [22] ; comp. Euseb. 1. c vii. 20) ; 
and in the scattered notes there are some 
characteristic remarks on the interpretation of 
the record of Creation. (See notes on i. 26 ; 
ii. 2, 16 ; iii. 21.) For Origen all Creation 
was " one act at once," presented to us in parts, 
in order to give the due conception of order 
(comp. Ps. cxlviii. 5). 

The Homilies, which were taken down from 
Origen's extemporary addresses (after A.D. 244), 
were translated by Rufinus, with such additions 
as he thought requisite to complete the inter- 
pretation of the passages touched upon (Praef. 
ad Rom.). They deal mainly with the moral 
application of main subjects in the book : 

U Gen. i. The origin qf the world and a/ that 

which is in it. 
O. „ vL 13-16. The construction qf the Ark. 
111. w xvii. 1-14. The circumcision qf Abraham. 
iv. , xviii. 1-21. The visit qf the three men to 

v. „ xlx. Lot and hit daughters. 
vi. * xx. The history qf Abimelech. 
vii. „ xxL The weaning qf Isaac and ejection 

viii. „ xxll. 1-14. The offering qf Isaac. 
ix. * xxil. 15-17. The renewed promise to 

x. „ xxiv. Hcbecca at the wdl. 
xt. » xxv. Abraham and Keturah; Isaac at 

the welt of vision. 
xii. „ xxv. 21 IT. ; xxvl. 12. The birth qf Esau 

and Jacob. 
xlli. „ xxvl. 17 ft*. The wells qf Isaac. 
xiv. „ xxvl. 26 ff. Isaac and Abimelech. 
xv. » xlv. 25 f. The return qf the sons qf Jacob 

from Egypt. 
xvi. „ xlvll. 20 f. The policy qf Joseph. 
xvii. „ xlix. The blessings qf the patriarchs. 

They contain little continuous exposition, but 
abound in striking thoughts. Among the pas- 
sages of chief interest may be named the view 
of the Divine image and the Dirine likeness, as 
expressing man's endowment and man's end 
(i. §§ 12, 13), the symbolism of the ark (ii 



§§ 4 ff.}, the nature of the Divine voice (iii. § 2)' 
the lesson of the opened wells (xiii. § 4), the 
poverty of the Divine priesthood (xvi. § 5). 

Exodus and Leviticus. 

Of the Books, Homilies, and Notes, which Origen 
wrote on Exodus and Leviticus, no detailed ac- 
count has been preserved. (Comp. th Rom. ix. 
§ 1, p. 283 L; Ruf. Apol. ii. 20 ; Hier. Ep. 33.) 
(Notes on Exodus ; ten " Books " on Leviticus ; 
Notes. Thirteen Homilies on Exodus ; eleven on 
Leviticus. — H. C.) 

The following remain : 



(1) On Ex. x. 27. (Several fragment*.) 
Huet, i. 17-25. 

Delarae, IL 111-120. 

(2) Notes from Catenae. Two short fragment* 
of Horn. viii. 

Delaruc, U. 121-129, 158. 

(3) Additional notes. 
Galland, I. c. p. 6. 

(1) and (2) are given by Lommatxscb, vtli. 299— 


Thirteen Homilies, translated by Rufinus. 

Delarae, IL 129-178. 

Lommatxscb, lx. 1-162. 

The main fragment of the Commentary on 
Exodus (Philoc. 27 [26]) deals with interpretation 
of the " hardening of Pharaoh's heart "(Ex. x. 27), 
which Origen (to use modern language) finds in 
the action of moral laws, while Pharaoh resisted 
the divine teaching. 

The Homilies, like those on Genesis, were 
translated by Rufinus from the reports of 
Origen's sermons, which he supplemented with 
interpretative additions (I.e.). They deal with 
the following topics : 

L Ex. i. 1-10. The multiplying of the people and 

the strange king, 
ii. „ 1. 15-22. The Egyptian mldwlves. 
111. „ Iv. lo-v. The Uisaion of Moses and Aaron, 
iv. „ vii. ff. The ten plagues, 
v. „ xii. 37 ff. The Exodus, 
vl. „ xv. 1-22. The Song of Moses, 
vii. „ xv. 23-xvL 12. The waters of Marah and 

the Manna, 
vlli. „ xx. 1-6. The first Two Commandments. 
Ix. „ xxv. The Tabernacle. 
x. n xxl. 22-26. Miscarriage from strife, 
xi. „ xvll. xviii. Rcphidlm : Amalck : Jethro. 
xii. „ xxxlv. 33 f. The glory of the face of Moses, 
xiii. „ xxxv. Freewill offerings of the Tabernacle. 

Throughout Origen dwells upon the spiritual 
interpretation of the record. " Not one iota or 
one tittle is," in his opinion, " without mysteries " 
(Horn. i. 4). The literal history has a mystical 
and a moral meaning (e.g. Hum. i. 4 f. ; ii. 1 ; 
iii. 3 ; iv. 8 ; vii. 3 ; x. 4 ; xiii. 5). Some of the 
applications which he makes are of great beauty, 
as, for example, in regard to the popular com- 
plaints against religious life, and the troubles 
which follow religious awakening (Ex. v. 4 ff., 
Horn. iii. 3) ; the difficulties of the heavenward 
pilgrimage (Ex. xiv. 2, Horn. v. 3) ; the believer 
as the tabernacle of God (Horn. ix. 4) ; turning' 
to the Lord (Ex. xxxiv. 34, coll. 2 Cor. iii. 16, 
Horn. xii. 2) ; the manifold offerings of different 
believers (Ex. xxxv. 5, Horn. xiii. 3). 

Digitized by 





(1) Fragm. of Horn. 2 (5). 
Huet, L 26. 

Delarue, ii. 192 f. 

(2) Notes from Catenae. 
Delarne, 11. 180-184. 

(3) Additional notes. 
Gotland, I.e. 6 r. 

(4) A fragment (comp. Horn, in Lev. viii. 6), 
Mai, Class. Avet. t. x. p. 600. 

(1) and (2) are given by Lommatzsch, lx. 163-171. 


Sixteen Homilies (translated by Rufinus). 

Delarne, U. 184-269. 
Lommatssch, lx. 112-446. 

The main substance of the Greek Notes is con- 
tained in the translation of the Homilies. The 
fragment given in Philocalia (c. 1), as from the 
second Homily, is found in the fifth Latin Homily 
(§ 1), though, by a strange oversight, writers, 
from Huet {Orig. iii. 2. 1 : " cujus ne apicemqui- 
dem in Homilia Latinae editionis secunda aliisve 
reperias ") downwards, have said that it is not 
found in the Latin. 

The Latin translation of the Homilies was 
made by Rufinus, who speaks of it as having been 
a work of considerable labour, as he altered their 
character from hortatory to interpretative {Peror. 
Ep. ad Rom. : " quae ab illo [Origene] quidem 
perorandi stilo a nobis vero explonondi specie 
translata sunt "). 

The Homilies treat of the following subjects : 
L Lev. 1. 1-9. On offerings generally. 



tL „ 

vU. » 

vill. „ 

lx. „ 

x. „ 

Xl. n 

ail. » 

xul. „ 

xlv. „ 

XV. „ 

xvi. ., 

iv. 3 J 21 f. On the different persons who 
offer: the priest, "a soul of the people 
of the land." 

v. 1 ff. On offerings lor Involuntary 

vl. 1-23. Offering for offences committed 
knowingly: burnt-offering. 

vL 24-vil. 34. Sin-offering : trespass offer- 
ing: peace-offering. 

vii. SS-vlll. 13. The consecration and 
array of the priests. 

x. 8 ff.-xi. Special laws for the priests. 
Animals clean and unclean. 

xii. 2 ff. xilL xlv. Ceremonial unclean- 
nose: leprosy. 

xvl. 1-17. The day of Atonement 

xvi. The fast on the day of Atonement 
and the scape-goat. 

xx. 7 ff. Consecration. 

xxl. 10. The High Priest. 

xxiv. 1-9. The lamps, the shewbread, &c 

xxiv. 10-14. The blasphemer. 

xxv. Soles and redemptions. 

xxvi. 3 ff. The blessings of obedience. 

In the interpretation of Leviticus Origen natu- 
rally dwells on the obvious moral and spiritual 
antitypes of the Mosaic ordinances. Not unfre- 
quently the use which he makes of them is im- 
pressive and ingenious. Such, for instance, is 
his view of man's soul and body, as the deposit 
which he owes to God (Lev. vi. 4, Horn. iv. 3) ; 
of the office of the Christian priest foreshadowed 
in that of the Jewish priest (Lev. vii. 28 ff., Horn. 
T. 12) ; of the priesthood of believers (Lev. viii. 
7 ff., Horn. vi. 5 ; comp. Horn. ix. 9) ; of the 
Saviour's sorrow (Lev. x. 9 coll. Matt. xxvi. 9, 


Horn. Tii. 2), of the purification by fire (Lev. 
xvi. 12, Horn. ix. 7). Throughout Christ appears 
as the one Sacrifice for the world, and the one 
Priest {Horn. i. 2 ; iv. 8 ; v. 3 ; ix. 2 ; xii.), though 
elsewhere He is said to join with Himself apostles 
and martyrs {Horn, in Sum. x. 2). 


No mention is made of" Books " on Numbers, 
unless the reference in Prol. in Cant. p. 316, &c. 
is to a commentary and not to a lost Homily. 
(Twenty-eight Homilies.— H. C.) 

Of Notes and Homilies (comp. Horn, m Jer. 
xii. § 3) the following remain : 


(1) Notes from Catenae. Small Fragment of 
Horn. xiii. 

Delarne, it 270-274 ; 321. 
Lonunatxsch, x. 1-8 j 156 note. 

(2) Additional notes. 
Galland, I.e. 7f. 


Twenty-eight Homilies, translated by Rnfinus.* 

Delarne, 11. 275-386. 
tammatzsch, x. 9-370. 

The Homilies follow the whole course of the 
narrative : 

I. Num. 

ii. „ 

111. „ 

lv. „ 

v. „ 

vi. „ 

vii. „ 

viii. „ 

xL „ 

xii. „ 

xili. „ 

xlv. „ 

XV. „ 

xvi. „ 

xvii. „ 

xviU. „ 

xix. „ 

XX. „ 

xxl. „ 


xxili. „ 

1. 1-3. The Idea of " numbering." The ordering of the tribes. 
111. 11 ff. The separation of the Levites. 
ill. 39. The number of the Levites. 
iv. 18 f., 47. The work of the Levites. 
xi. 24 ff., xii. 2. The seventy elders. The 

Ethiopian wife of Moses, 
xii. 6 ff. The leprosy of Miriam. 
xlv. 8 ff. The report of the spies and the 

mnrmurings of the people, 
xvl., xvii. The sedition of Koran. Aaron's 

xviii. 1 ff. The vicarious office of the 

xviii. Of the first-fruits, 
xxl. 16 ff. The song of the well, 
xxl. 24 ff, xxli. The defeat of Slhon and 

Og. Balaam and the ass. 
xxli. Balaam. 

xxili. 1-10. The first prophecy of Balaam, 
xxiil. 11-24. The second prophecy, 
xxili. 27-xxlv. 9. The third prophecy, 
xxiv. 10-19. The fourth prophecy, 
xxiv. 20-24. The fifth prophecy. 
xxv. The sin with Baol-peor. 
xxvi. The second numbering of the 

xxvli. 1 ff. The daughters of Zelopbchad. 

Provision for Moses' successor, 
xxviil. On the various Festivals. 

p Cassiodorus (Instf*. 1) mentions thirty, but this 
is probably only a difference of numbering. Several 
Homilies might be properly divided: t.g. lx. xllL, 
xxii. The translation of the Homilies (twenty-eight) 
on Numbers was among the latest works of Rufimu. 
It was made In the year of his death (410), after the 
desolation of Rnegium by Alarlc, and while Sicily was 
ktlll threatened by the Goths (Kof. PnHog.). Rufinus 
incorporated in his translation the notes (Ezxxrpta) 
which he found (l.c.) In offering it to Ursadus, at 
whose request It was undertaken, be proposes, if bis 
health allows, to translate the Homilies on Deuteronomy, 
which alone remained of Orlgen's writinirs on the Penta- 
uch. This design however was hindered by his death. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


xxiv. Num. xxx. On various offerings. 
xxv. „ xxxi. The vengeance on the Mldianites. 
xxvi. „ xxxi. 48 ff., xxxli. Differenced among 

the people. 
xxvU. „ zxxlii. Stages In the people's Journey- 

xxvuL. „ xxxiv. The borders of the land. 

One main idea is prominent throughout. The 
struggles of the Israelites on the way to Canaan 
are the image of the struggles of the Christian. 
The entrance on the Promised Land foreshadows 
the entrance on the heavenly realm (Hum. vii. 5). 
The future world will even, in Origen's judg- 
ment, offer differences of race and position cor- 
responding to those of the tribes of Israel and 
the nations among whom they moved (Horn. i.3 ; 
ii. 1 ; xi. 5 ; xxriii. 4). The interpretation of 
the record of the stations (Horn, xxvii.) is a very 
good example of the way in which he finds a 
meaning in the minutest details of the history. 
Of wider interest are his remarks on man's 
spiritual conflict (Bom. vii. 6), on the wounds 
of sin (Horn. viii. 1), on advance in wisdom 
(Horn. xrii. 4), on the festivals of heaven (Horn. 
xxiii. 11), on self-dedication (Horn. xxiv. 2), on 
the stains of battle (Horn, xxv. 6). 


Cassiodoms (tie Instit. 1) mention's four Homi- 
lies of Origen on Deuteronomy (in quibus est 
minuta nimis et subtilis expositio), and there 
can be no doubt that it was these (oratiuncutae) 
Rufinus proposed to translate if his health had 
been restored. Origen speaks of the interpreta- 
tion of Deuteronomy as a work still future in 
the latest book of his commentary on St. John 
(n Joh. Tom. xxxii. § 11). On the other hand 
he refers to his discussion of Deut. iv. 17 in his 
homilies on St. Luke (Horn. viii.}. 

(Thirteen Homilies. — H. C.) 

The scanty remains are : 

(1) Notes from Catenae. 

Delarue, U. 384-393. 
Lommatach, x. 371-382. 

(2) Additional notes. 

One interesting note at least among those 
which have been collected from Catenae appears 
to be a fragment of a homily (in Deut. viii. 7). 

It is probable (Hier. Ep. 84, 7) that consider- 
able fragments of Origen's comments on the Pen- 
tateuch are contained in Ambrose's treatise on 
the Hexaemeron, but the treatise has not yet been 
critically examined. 

ii. Joshtja-Second Kings. 

Origen appears to have treated these historical 
books in homilies only, or perhaps in detached 
notes also. 

(Twenty-six Homilies on Joshua. — H. C) 

There remain of the several books : 


(1) Fragm. of Horn, xx. 

Hwt,l. 28ff. 
Delarue, U. 442 1 

(2) Notes from Catenae. 
DeUrne, 11. 393-6. 

(3) Additional notes. 
Galland, I. c. 14 £ 

(1) and (2) are given by Lommstncb, xi. 167 ff. 
1-ias, 170-214. 




Twenty-six Homilies, translated by Rufinus. 

Delarue, II. 397-157. 

Lommatzsch, xl. 6-214. 

The homilies on Joshua belong to the latest 
period of Origen's life. They were delivered 
after the homilies on Jeremiah (Horn. xiii. 3), 
and the reference to a systematic persecution in 
Horn. ix. 10 seems to point to that of Decius 250. 
In this case the Latin translator Rufinus appears, 
from the language of his preface, to have ad- 
hered faithfully to the texts before him. (Comp. 
Peror. Ep. ad Rom. : quae in Jesu Naue scrip- 
simus simpliciter expressimus ut invenimus.) 
Perhaps for this reason these homilies offer the 
most attractive specimen of Origen's popular 
interpretation. The parallel between the leader 
of the Old Church and the Leader of the New 
is drawn with great ingenuity and care. The 
spiritual interpretation of the conquest of Canaan, 
as an image of the Christian life, never flags. 
Fact after fact is made contributory to the 
fulness of the idea; and the reader is forced 
to acknowledge that the fortunes of Israel can 
at least speak to us with an intelligible voice. 
Rufinus himself may have felt the peculiar charm 
of the book, for he selected it for translation in 
answer to a general request of Chromatius to 
render something from Greek literature for the 
edification of the church. 

The homilies cover the whole narrative up to 
the settling of the land (c. xxii.) : 
1. Introductory. 

II. Josh. 1. 1 ff. The charge to Joshua. 

III. » L 16 ff., U. The preparation. 
Iv. „ 111. The passage of Jordan. 

v. „ iv.-v. 9. The renewal of the Covenant. 
vL „ v. 10 ff. The Passover at Qllgal j and the 

divine vision. 
vii. „ vi. The capture of Jericho. 
vUL „ vii.-vlli. 29. The failure before Ai and 

Its capture, 
be „ Till. 30 ff. The alter In Ebal, and the 

blessings and cursings. 
x. „ tx. The craft of tin Gibeonites. 
xi. „ x. The battle or Beth-boron, 
xii. The wpiritnal Interpretation generally, 
xlll. Josh. x. 28 ff. The taking of Llbnah, tx. 
xlv. „ xi. 1 ff. The conquest of Jabin. 
xv. „ xi. 9 ff. Vengeance on the enemies of the 

xvL „ xlll. 1. Joshua at the close of life, 
xvilt „ xlll. 14. The Levites without earthly 

xvili. „ xlv. 6ff. The request of Caleb, 
xix. „ xv. 1. The borders of Judah. 
xx. „ xv. 13 ff. Caleb and his daughter. 
xxi. „ xv. 63. The Jebusites unconqnered. 
xxii. „ xvi. 10. Ephraim and the Canaan! tea 
xxiii. „ xvlii. 8. Distribution by lot. 
xxiv. „ xlx. 47 (LXX) ff. The remaining Amor- 

ites. The portion of Joshua. 
xxv. „ xxi. 2 ff. The cities of the Levites. 
xxvL „ xxL 42 (LXX), xxii. 11 ff. The burying 
of the stone knives and the altar of the 
trans-Jordanic tribes. 
Among other passages of special interest may 
be mentioned those on the help which we gain 
from the old fathers (Horn. iii. 1); the broad 
parallel between the Christian life and the history 
of the Exodus (Horn. iv. 1) ; the Christian realis- 
ing Christ's victory (Horn. vii. 2); growing 
wisdom (Horn. xii. 2). 

(Nine Homilies on Judges : eight in Pascliae. — 

Digitized by 





(1) Notes from Catenae. 
Delarue, H. 457 t. 
Lommatzscb, xl. 216 1 

(2) Additional note*. 
Galland, I. c. 15. 


Nine Homilies, translated by Rufinca. 

Delarue, II. 468-478. 
Lommattacb, xl. 217-234. 

A note on i. 4. 

Delarae, ii. 478. 

Lommatzscb, xL 284. 

The Homilies on Judges contain a reference to 
Homilies on Joshua (Horn. iii. § 3), but Origen 
may have treated the book more than once. 
Ilulinus translated them, as he says, literally as 
he found them (Peror. Ep. ad Eom.% They arc 
of much less interest than those on Joshua, and 
deal with the following subjects : 

1. Jud. li. T. The Israelites serving the Lord. 



11. 8 ff. Tbe death or Joshua. 



til. 8 ff., 12 ff. Othniel and Ehud. 



til. 31, iv. 1 ff. Sbamgar, Jabln, Slsera. 



lv. 4 ft*. Deborah, Barak, Jael. 



v. The song of Deborah. 



vl. 1 ff. The oppression of MIdian. 



vi. 33 ff. Gideon. 



vli. The victory of Gideon. 

A passage on martyrdom— tbe baptism of 
blood — is worthy of notice (Horn, vii. 2). In 
another passage {Horn. ix. 1) Origen seems to 
refer to the persecution of Maiiminus, which was 
but lately ended. 

Fibst and Second Samuel, First and Second 
Kings (First to Fourth Kings). 


(Four Homilies on 1 Kings. — H. 0.) 

(1) Horn, on 1 Sam. xxviii. (On the Witch of 

Huot, 1. 28-37. 
Delarue, 11. 490-488. 

(2) Notes from Catenae and Fragment!. 
Delarue, 11. 478-81. 

(3) Additional notes. 
Galland, l.e. 18-24. 

(1) and (2) are given In Lommatzscb, xL 317-332, 


Homily on 1 Sam. i. ii. (Be Helchana et Fe- 
nenna), delivered at Jerusalem (§ 1 : nolite illud 
in nobis requirere quod in papa Alexandre 
habetis). The translator is not known. 

Delarue, U. 481-489. 
Lommatzscb, xl. 289-316. 

The remains of Origen's writings on the 
later historical books are very slight. Origen 
himself refers (Horn, on Josh. iii. § 4) to a 
Homily on Solomon's Judgment (1 Kings iii.) ; 
and in the time of Cassiodorus there were, in 
addition to the two extant Homilies, four Homi- 
lies on 1 Sam., one on 2 Sam., one on 2 Chron. 
(Instit. 2), and "two on the book of Ezra, 


which were translated into Latin by Bellator " 
(Instit. 6). It is possible that at least the two 
last may yet be found. 

The Homily on the witch of Endor piovoked 
violent attacks. In this Origen maintained, in 
accordance with much early Christian and 
Jewish opinion, that the soul of Samuel was 
truly called up from Hades. Among others 
Kastathius of Antioch assailed Origen in un- 
measured terms. One passage in the Latin 
Homily may be specially noticed, in which unity 
is set forward as the special privilege of saint* 


iii. The Hagiographa. 


Origen composed many Homilies on Job- 
(Eustath. Antioch. de Engastr. 391), which 
were rendered freely into latin by Hilary of 
Poictiers (Hier. de Vir. III. 100 ; Ep. adv. Vigil. 
61, 2). The scattered Notes which remain are 
not sufficient to enable us to estimate their 
value. Comp. Horn, in Ezech. vi. 4 ; Hier. Ep. 
ad Pammach. 57, 6 j Lib. I. c. Euf. § 2.* 

(Twenty-two Homilies on Job. — H. C) 

There remain : 

(1) Notes from Catenae. 

Delarue, 500-610. 
Lommatzsch, xl. 335-350 

(2) Additional notes. 

Galland, J. e. 30-64. 

Mai, Clan. Avct. torn. Ix. In Procopius (many 
additional passages). 


Fragment quoted from a homily of Hilary 
by August. Lib. ii. c. Jul. § 27, and assumed to- 
be translated from Origen. 

Delarue, II. 600. 
Lommatzscb, xl. 333 f. 

The Psalms. 

The Psalms engaged Origen's attention before 
he left Alexandria. At that time he had written 
commentaries on Pss. i.-xxv. (Euseb. ff. E. vi. 
24). He continued and completed the book 
afterwards. Jerome expressly states that he 
■' left an explanation of all the Psalms in many 
volumes " (Ep. cxii. § 20) ; and his extant books 
contain references to his commentaries on psalms 
scattered throughout the collection (comp. Hier. 
Ep. xxxiv. § 1). 

In addition to these detailed commentaries. 
Origen illustrated the Psalter by short Notes 
(" a handbook : " enchiridion ille vocabat, Auct. 
ap. Hier. Tom. vii. App. 1 ), and by Homilies. 

« The two works on Job printed with Origen's writ- 
ings are not his. Comp. TlUemont, note 34. 

' The passage is worth quoting: "Cum Origenis 
Fsalterlum, quod Enchiridion Ule vocabat .... in com- 
mune legereraua, slmul uterque deprehendlmus nonnulla 
eum .... Intacta rellqui&se, de qulbus in alio opera .... 

disputavit Igitur .... stodioee .... postul&sti nt 

quaecumque mlhi dlgna mfmoria videbantnr slgnis qui- 
oiisdam annotarem .... mm quod putem a me posse diet 
quae Ule praeterilt, sed quod ca quae in torois vel 
homiltls ipse dlsserult vel ego dlgna arbltror lections In 
hunc angustum commentariolum referam." There can 
be no doubt therefore that this Breviarium in Psaimu* 
contains much of Origen's work and deserves considera- 
tion In this respect. 

Digitized by 



The Homilies which arc preserved in Rufinus's 
Latin translation belong to the latest period of 
Origen's life, c 241-247 {Horn. 1 in Ps. xxxvi. 
§ 2 ; Horn. 1 in Ps. iiiTii. § 1). They give a 
continuous practical interpretation of the three 
psalms, and are a very good example of this 
style of exposition, (hie passage on the per- 
manent effects of actions on the doer may be 
specially noticed (Horn. ii. § 2). 

The Greek fragments preserved in the Catenae 
offer nnmerons close coincidences with the Latin 
Homilies, and there is no reason to doubt that 
they represent the general sense of Origen's com- 
ments. Comp. Oman, in Sam. iv. § 1 (cum de 
Psalmis per ordinem dictaremus) ; id. § 11 ; 
Hon. in Jer. xv. 6. 

(Notes on Psalms, in all forty-six books; and 
one hundred and eighteen Homilies. — H. C.) 

There remain still of writings on the Psalms : 


(1) Fragments from the Topot and Homilies. 

Hue*,!- 1-61. 

Delaroe, U. 525-629, 532, 565-572. 

(2) Additional fragments and notes from 

Dclarue, ti. 513-424, 529-849. 

(3) Additional notes. 

Galland, J. c 64-13. Comp. Dclarue, II. Praef- 

(1) and (2) are given In Lommatzsch, xi. 351-458; 

xli. xliL 1-155, with an additional fragment from 

Easeb. B. E. vi. 38. 


Nine Homilies on Pss. xxxvi. xxxvii. xxxviii. 
(translated by Rnfinus). 

Dehrue, U. 655-519, 680-489, 691-700. 
Lommatxscb, xH. 151-231, 231-271, 274-306. 


(Three Books ; seven Homilies ; one book of 
questions. — H. C.) 
On the book of Proverbs there remain : 

(1) Fragments. 

Delaroe, Hi. 2-10. 
Lommatzsch, xllL 219-234. 

(2) Notes from Catenae. 

Galland, I. c 25-29. 

Additional notes, Mai, BO*. Nov. Patrum, vil. 


Delaroe, ill. 1. 
Lommatzsch. xlil. 217 f. 


(Notes ; eight Homilies. — H. C.) 

Notes on iii. 3, 7, 16 f. 

Galland. I.e. 30. 


Origen wrote commentaries on the Lamenta- 
tions before 231, of which five books had come 
down to the time of Eusebins (//. E. vi. 24). 
The Greek notes are probably derived from 

(Five Books.— H. C.) 

Delaroe, Hi. 321-351. 
Lommatssch, xiv. 167-216. 




It was natural that the book of Canticles 
should occupy Origen early. He wrote a small 
volume upon it, of which a fragment remains in 
the Philocalia, c. vii. At a much later time, 
when he was at Athens 240, he composed five 
books of a full commentary, which he afterwards 
completed at Caesarea (Euseb. If. E. vi. 32). 
Jerome speaks of the work with enthusiasm : 
" in his other books Origen," he says, " surpassed 
every one else, in this he surpassed himself" 
(Prol. in Horn, in Cant.). The prologue and 
part of the full commentary (to Cant. ii. 16) 
were translated by Rufinus.' Jerome himself 
shrank from undertaking the task, and rendered 
instead two Homilies, which cover the same 
ground but in a simpler form. No work of 
Origen's more widely influenced later com- 
mentators. He marked in it once for all the 
main lines of allegorical interpretation which 
they followed. The writing contains also some 
passages of more general interest, as the ex- 
amination of the three books of Solomon — 
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles — in connexion 
with the popular types of speculation (Prol.). 

(Ten Books ; two Books written early ; two 
Homilies.— H. C.) 

There remain : 


(1) Fragments of his early work. 

Huet, L 61 f. 
Delaroe, ill. 11. 
Lommatzsch, xlv. 232 f 

(2) Extracts by Procopius. 

Delaruc ill. 94-104. 
Lommatzsch, xv. 91-108. 


Two Homilies (translated by Jerome). 

Delaroe, Hi. 12-22. 
Lommatzsch, xiv. 235-278. 

Prologue and four books on Canticles, trans* 
lated by Rufinus. 

Delarne, 111. 26-94. 

Lommatzscb, xiv. 281-437 1 xv. 1-90. 

iv. The Prophets. 


Origen interpreted Isaiah in each of the three 
forms which he used in Books (r6fioi), in Notes, 
and in Homilies. Thirty books of his Commen- 
taries remained when Eusebius wrote his History 
extending to c. xxx. 6 (Euseb. H. E. vi. 32). 
Some of these had already perished in the time 
of Jerome, who speaks of the work as abounding 
in allegories and interpretation of names (Prol. 
in Lib. v. in Es. : liberis allegoriae spatiis eva- 
gatur et interpretatis nominibus singulorum 
ingenium suum facit ecclesiae sacramenta). 
Besides these Commentaries Jerome was ac- 
quainted with twenty-five Homilies and Notes. 

(Thirty-six Books ; thirty-six books of notes (?) ; 
thirty-two Homilies.— H. C.) 

■ This appears to be the real meaning of what Cas- 
slodorus says, De Div. Inttit. J 6, though be apparently 
describes Kufinus' work as only an amplified translation 
of tbe same original as Jerome rendered: quos item 
Rnfinus. . .adjecus qulbnsdam locls usque ad lllud prae- 
ceptum quod alt capile nobis... (tt. 16) trlbus libris 
latins exposuit. 

Digitized by 




All that at present remains of these Commen- 
taries and Homilies is : 

Two fragments of the " Books." 
Mine Homilies. 

Delarue, Ui. 105-124. 

Lommatzsch, xill. 235-301. 

The last of the Homilies is imperfect. They 
were translated by Jerome, who is accused by 
Rufinus of having modified the original text for 
dogmatic purposes. 

The Homilies were addressed to a popular 
audience, including catechumens, but they want 
the ease of the latest discourses, and follow no 
exact order. 

1. Is. vl. 1-7. The call or the prophet 

M. „ vil. 10-18. Tho virgin's son. 

111. „ iv. 1. The seven women. 

lv. „ vl. 1-7. The vision of God. 

v. „ xll. 2; vl. Iff. 

vl. „ vl. 8 ft. The mission of the prophet • 

vil. „ vlll. 18 ff. The prophet and his children. 

vilL „ x. 10-13. 

Ix. „ (A fragment.) 

One passage of characteristic excellence may 
be mentioned {Horn. vi. 4), in which Origen 
describes the "greater works" of Christ's 


Cassiodorns enumerates forty-five homilies of 
Origen on Jeremiah " in Attic style " (de Instit. 
div. litt. § 3). Of these Jerome translated four- 
teen " confuso ordine " (Praef. in Horn, in Jer. 
et Ezech.), which have been preserved; and 
Babanus Maurus (Praef. in Jerem.), referring to 
the statement of Cassiodorus, states that he 
could find only fourteen homilies translated. 
Of the nineteen Greek homilies twelve are iden- 
tical with twelve of Jerome, so that altogether 
twenty-one homilies remain. The homilies were 
written in a period of tranquillity, and therefore, 
in all probability, after the close of the persecu- 
tion of Maximinus, c. 245 (Horn. iv. 3). 

(Twenty-four Homilies.— H. C.) 

There remains then altogether : 


(1) Nineteen Homilies (with Jerome's version 
of twelve). Fragment of Horn, xxxix. 

Huet I. 53-183. 
Delarue, 111. 125-278, 285 f. 
Lommatzscb, xv. 109-388 (without Jerome's 

(2) Notes from Catenae. 
Delarue, 111. 287-320. 
Lommatisch, xv. 418-180. 


Two Homilies, translated by Jerome. 

Delarue, ill. 277-288. 

Lommatzscb, xv. 389-417. 

The Greek homilies were first published in 
1548, from a MS. in the Escurial under the 
name of Cyril, which they bore in the MS., by 
B. Corderius. A second MS., containing the 
same Homilies, was afterwards found in the 
Vatican by M. Ghisler, who published the Greek 
text of the seven not translated by Jerome 
(3, 5, 6, 7, 15, 18, 19) in his Commentary on 
Jeremiah (1623). The various readings of this 
text were added by Huat to his reprint of the 


text of Corderius, and they are given from htm in 
later editions of Origen.' 

The nineteen Greek Homilies follow the order 
of the text: 

I. Jer. i. 1-10. The mission of the prophet 

II. „ li-2lt The degenerate vine. 

111. „ ILS1. The universal goodness of God. 
Iv. „ iIl.e-10. Perils of degeneracy, 
v. „ 1U. 22-iv. 8. Call to repentance. 
vi. „ v. 3ff. Insensibility, 
vil. „ v. 18 f. Chastisement, 
vlll. „ x. 12 ff. The work of God for men. 
ix. „ xi. 1-10. The word of God to His people, 
x. „ xi. 18-xll. 9. The apostasy of the Jews. 

Christ's work. 
xi. „ xll. ll-xili. U. The rejection of the Jews, 
xli. „ xili. 12-17. Just Judgment, 
xiii. „ xv. 5 ff. Punishment of backsliders. 
xlv. „ xv. 10-19. The lot of the rejected prophet 
xv. „ xv. lOff.; xvlL$. The sorrow of Christ 

No hope in man. 
xvi. „ xvi. 16-xvU. 1. Fishers and hunters of souls. 

The record of sin. 
xvii. „ xvii. 11-16. The image of the partridge. 

Divine help. 
xvitt. „ xvlii. 1-18; XX. 1-6. The potter. The 
punishment of the impenitent The les- 
son of Pashnr. 
xlx. „ xx. 7-12. How God deceives. Endurance 

of reproaches, 
xx. (Latin.) Jer. 1. 23-29. The hammer of the earth 

xxi. (Latin.) „ lt«-9. Flight from Babylon. 
xxxlx. (Gk. fragm.) Jer.xllv. 22. Each word of Scrip- 
ture has Its work. 

For the most part the Homilies give a full 
interpretation of the text, accommodating the 
language of the prophet to the circumstances of 
the Christian Church. But Origen's total want 
of historical feeling makes itself felt perhaps 
more in his treatment of this book than else- 
where, for the teaching of Jeremiah is practically 
unintelligible without a true sense of the tragic 
crisis in which he was placed. There are how- 
ever many separate passages of the Homilies of 
considerable beauty, e.g. on the fruitful disci- 
pline of God (Horn. iii. 2), the ever-new birth 
of Christ {Horn. ix. 4), the marks of sin (Horn. 
xvi. 10). Comp. Horn, m Josh. xiii. § 3. 

The selected Notes probably supply the general 
sense of the lost homilies on the passages to which 
they refer. As far as the Homilies extend, they 
contain the main substance of the Notes. 


(Twenty-nine Books ; twelve Homilies. — H.C.) 
Of Origen's writings on Ezekiel there remain : 

(1) Fragments, 
Huet L 200 f. 
Delarue, Ui. 352 f. 
Lommatzscb, xlv. 1 ff. 

(2) Notes from Catenae. 
Delarue, UI. 408-437. 
Loinmatxsch, xlv. 179-232. 
Mai, BiU. Not. Patrtm, vil. 

« It is commonly said, as even the language of Huet 
seems to suggest that Ghisler found only *>ven homilies. 
His own account (Praef. c vil.) is quite clear that he 
found twenty homilies, nineteen on Jeremiah with one 
other, and that he printed the seven homilies on Jeremiah 
which were not translated by Jerome. It does not appear 
that either of the MSS. have been re-examlnad 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



Fourteen Jfomilies. 
Delarue, ill. 353-40* 
Lommatssch, xlv. 4-178. 

Ensebius records that Origen wrote a Com- 
mentary on Ezekiel in twenty-fire books, which 
was finished nt Athens, c 238 (H. E. vi. 32). 
Of these the notes mar contain some fragments ; 
and one fragment of the twentieth book is given 
in the Phtfocalia (c. xi.). The Homilies belong 
to a later date. Of these (it is unknown how 
many were published) Jerome translated fourteen, 
preserving in his version, as he says, the simple 
style of the original (Prol. in Ezech.). These 
treat of the following passages : 

L Enek. i. 1-16. Tbe Ant vision of Kieklel. 
ii. „ xiit 2-8. The message to false prophets. 
ill. „ JdiL 17-ziv. 8. The heaviness of tbe pro- 
phet's charge, 
ir. „ xlv. 13 f. Personal salvation of the 

T. „ xiv„ xv. 2. The Judgments of God. 
vL „ xvi. 3-15. The misery of God's people in 

viL „ xvi. 16-29. The abominations of false 

vHi. „ xvi. 30-33. The issues of false teaching, 
ix. „ xvi. 45-52. The heinousness of pride. 
x. „ xv L 52-60. The fruit of chastisement, 
xi. „ xvll. 2, 3. The parable of the eagle, 
xii. „ xviL 12-24. Judgments and promises, 
xiii. „ xxvill. 12, 13. Corruption of blessings. 
xlv. „ xllv. 2. The closed gate. 

It will be seen that the Homilies cover only 
a small portion of the book ; nor do they offer 
many features of special interest. The passages 
which speak of the responsibility of teachers 
{Horn. v. 5 ; vii. 3) are perhaps the most 


Origen commented upon the histories of 
Snsanna and of Bel (Dan. Apocr. xiii. xiv.) in 
the tenth book of his Miscellanies (Xrpufiarus), 
and Jerome has preserved a brief abstract of bis 
notes as an appendix to his commentary on 
Daniel (Delaruc, i. 49 f.; Lommatzsch, xrii., 
70 ff.> 

In a collection of notes on Daniel printed by 
Mai (Script. Vet. Kova Coll. i. 2, Romae 1825), 
I have observed two notes referred to Origen 
on Dan. i. 8 ; ir. 25, bnt they might well have 
been taken from homilies on other books. 

TrtE Minor Prophets. 

Origen wrote extensive commentaries on the 
twelve minor prophets, of which twenty-fire 
books remained in the time of Eusebius (H. E. 
vi. 36) ; and Jerome says that he fonnd a manu- 
script of them " written by the hand of Para- 
phihu" which he kept "as the treasures of 
Croesus " (fie Vir. III. § 75). Of the number of 
these were probably the two volumes on Zech. 
i.-v., the three on Malachi, and the two on 
Hosea, which Jerome mentions in the prefaces 
of his own commentaries on those books. The 
fragment on Hosea xii., preserved in the Philo- 
calia, c riii., is all that now remains. 

(Two Books on Hosea (one on Ephraim) ; two 
on Joel ; six on Amos ; one on Jonah ; two on 
Micah ; two on Nahum ; three on Habakknk ; 
two on Zephaniah ; one on Haggai ; two on 
Zechariah (principio) ; two on Malachi. — H. C.) 





Hart, L 201 f. 
Delarue, iiL 438 f. 
Lommatzsch, xiii. 302 ft 

2. Writings on the New Testament. 
St. Matthew 
There remain i 

(1) Fragments of To/tot i. ii. To/iot x.-xvii. 
(Matt. xiii. 36-xxii. 33). 

Huet, i. 203-469. 
Delarue, ill. 440-820. 
Lommatzsch, Hi. 1-lv. 172. 

(2) Notes from Catenae. 
Galland, I.e. 73-83. 

(3) A large number of additional notes from 
Cod. Coislm. xxiii. 

Cramer, Catena, roL I, Oxford, 1840. 

(1) Fragments. 

(2) An old version of the commentary on 
St. Matthew, xri. 13-xxrii. 

Delarue, ill 521-931. 

Lommatzsch gires the Latin version from the 
point where the Greek fails ; ir. 173-r. 84. 

Eusebius states that Origen wrote twenty-five 
Books (to>oi) on St. Matthew (H. E. vi. 36); 
and Jerome, in the preface to his commentary 
on St. Matthew, says that he had read that 
number ; but in the prologue to his translation 
of Origen's homilies on St. Lnke he speaks, ac- 
cording to the common text, of " thirty-six 
books " (the Corpus Christi Coll. Camb. MS. reads 
twenty-six), and Rufraus again (Apci. ii. § 22) of 
" twenty-six." From the proportion which the 
remaining books bear to the whole gospel, the 
statement of Kusebius appears to be correct. 
The largest number is certainly wrong. 

The commentaries seem to hare been written 
c. a.d. 245-6. He refers in them to his (lost) 
homilies on St. Luke (Tom. xiii. 29 : Tom. xri. 
9); and to his commentaries on St. John (Tom. 
xvi. 20; Comm. Ser. §§ 77, 133, John xix. 18) 
and on the Romans (Tom. xrii. 32). In addition 
to the " Books " Origen also wrote Homilies and 
Notes (scholia) upon the Gospel (Hier. Praef. in 
Hatt.y. Fragments from these may be preserred 
in some of the notes from Catenae. 

(Twenty-fire Books ; twenty-fire Homilies. 
— H. C.) 

The Greek text of the Commentaries is pre- 
serred in four MSS, 

L. Codec Bolmientis, in tbe Library of Trio. Coll. 
Cambridge, B. 8, 10, quoted by Delarue as two 
MSS. : collated by Bentley, in a copy of Huet, 
In tbe same library, F. 7, 13." 

2. Codex Begius, a Paris MS., used by Huet 

3. Codex Vaticanus 597, used by Delarue. 

4. Codex Venetut 43, examined partially by Peter- 

maun for Lommatzsch. 

To these may be added a copy of a MS. made 
by Tarinus and nsed by Delarue. 

■ Huet seems to insinuate some doubts as to Thorn- 
dike's title to the MS. The inscription In the MS. is 
quite definite : " Hie est ille codex Holmlensis quern 
totles laudat Dan. Huetlus in snls Orlgenianls. (Then 
apparently In another hand.) Donavit Herberto Thorn- 
dlcio Isaacus Tosslus." A MS. of the Dialoguu againtt 
the Mareimita In the same collection (B. 9. 110) bears 
an inscription In the same band: * Dealt Herberto 
Thorndlclo cl. v. Is. Voseius." 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



All the MSS. are from one archetype (see 
lacunae, xii. 20, 42 ; xiii. 28 ; xvii. 29, 31). 

The Latin text of the cditio princcps (Merlin) 
represents a good MS. Delarue in the Appendix 
in toI. iv. pp. 388 ff. has given a collation of two 
MSS., one of the 8th and the other of the 12th 
century, which Lommatzsch has incorporated 
in his edition ; and there is a very fine MS. 
(Saec. xii.) in the British Museum (Adi. 26,761). 

The Latin MSS. like the Greek, seem to re- 
present a single archetype. 

The work was probably addressed to Am- 
brosius. Personal addresses occur in it not un- 
frequently (iiv. 24, av {nriioats Sc ; xv. 5 ; 
xvi. 7, § 19). 

The Cod. Holm, gives the tenth and eleventh 
books under one heading — ix ray tls to K. M. 
(bay. T. id (the later books are headed To/in i/S, 
&c), and the same heading is found in other 
authorities. The commentary however does not 
seem to be a mere scries of extracts ; and the old 
Latin version is not more remote from the text 
than other Latin versions of Origen's works in 
which the translators introduced from time to 
time notes from other parts of his works. 

The tenth book gives a continuous exposition 
of Matt. xiii. 36-xiv. 15. The most interesting 
passages are those in which Origen discusses 
characteristically the types of spiritual sickness 
(c. 24) ; and the doubtful question as to " the 
brethren of the Lord " (c. 17). In the latter 
place he gives his own opinion, on internal 
grounds, in favour of the belief in the perpetual 
virginity of the mother of the Lord. In the 
account of Herod's banquet he has preserved de- 
finitely the fact, that " the daughter of Herodias " 
bore the same name as her mother (c. 22), in 
accordance with the true reading in Mark vi. 22 
(■njs Bvyarpbs earrov 'HpipSt&Sos); but he 
strangely supposes that the power of life and 
death was taken away from Herod in conse- 
quence of the execution of the Baptist (c. 21). 

The eleventh book (c. xiv. 15-xv. 32) contains 
several pieces of considerable interest on the 
discipline of temptation (c. 6), on Corban (c. 9), 
on the conception of things unclean (c. 12), on 
the healing spirit in the Church (c. 18), and 
perhaps, above all, that on the Eucharist (c. 14), 
which is of primary importance for the under- 
standing of Origen's view. 

The most important passages in the twelfth 
book which gives the commentary on c. xvi. 1- 
xvii. 9, are those which treat of the confession 
and blessing of St. Peter (pc. 10 ff.), and of the 
Transfiguration (cc. 37 ff.). In the former he 
regards St. Peter as the type of the true believer. 
All believers, as they are Christians, are Peters 
also (c. 11 : Trapt&wfioi ireroas TdWes ol lu/rqral 
Xpurrov. • .Xf/iarov p<Ai) trrts Tapdyv/ioi ixpv- 
fMTtffav Xpiffrtavoij "wirpos 8« •wirpoi). His 
ignorance of the Hebrew idiom leads him, like 
other early commentators, to refer the " binding 
and loosing " to sins (c. 14). 

The thirteenth book (c. xvii. 10-xviii. 18) opens 
with an argument against transmigration. Later 
on there is an interesting discussion of the in- 
fluence of the planets upon men (c. 6). Other 
characteristic passages deal with the various 
circumstances under which the Lord healed the 
•ick (c. 3), the rule for avoiding offences (c. 24), 
and especially the doctrine of guardian angels 
<oo.26f.). * S 


The fourteenth book (c. xviii. 19-xix. 11) con- 
tains a characteristic examination of the senses 
in which the "two or three " in Matt, xviii. 2l> 
may be understood (cc. 1 ff.) ; and a somewhar. 
detailed discussion of points connected with mar- 
riage (cc. 16 ff. ; cc. 23 ff). 

The fifteenth book (xix. 12-xx. 16) has several 
pieces of more than usual interest : the investi- 
gation of the meaning of Matt. xix. 12 f. with 
(as it appears) clear reference to his own early 
error (c. 2); a fine passage on the goodness 
of God even in His chastisements (c 11); and 
some remarkable interpretations of the five send- 
ings of labourers to the vineyard (Matt. xx. 1 ff.), 
in one of which he likens St. Paul to one who 
had wrought as an apo»t!e in one hour more 
perhaps than all those before him (c. 35). 

The sixteenth book (xx. 17-xxi. 22) gives 
some striking pictures of the darker side of 
Christian society, of the growing pride of the 
hierarchy, of the faults of church officers, of the 
separation between clergy and laity (cc. 8, 22, 25). 
In discussing the healing of Bartimaeus Origen 
holds that a choice must be made between sup- 
posing that the three evangelists have related 
three incidents, if the literal record is to be 
maintained, or that they relate one and the same 
spiritual fact in different words (c. 12). 

The seventeenth book (xii. 23-xxii. 33) con- 
tains interpretations of the parables of the two 
sons (c. 4), of the vineyard (6 ff.), of the mar- 
riage feast (15 ff.), which are good examples 
of Origen's method ; and his explanations of the 
questions of the Herodians (cc. 26 ff.) and the 
Sadducees (c. 33) are of interest. 

The old Latin translation continues the com- 
mentary to Matt, xxvii. 63. As passages in it 
of chief interest may be noticed : the application 
of the woes (Matt, xxiii. 1 ff.), §§ 9-25 ; the 
legend of the death of Zachariah the father of 
the Baptist, § 25 ; the danger of false opinions, 
§ 33 ; the gathering of the saints, § 51 ; the 
limitation of the knowledge of the Son (Matt, 
xxiv. 36), § 55 ; the administration of the re- 
venues of the church, § 61 ; the duty of using 
all that is lent to us, § 66 ; the eternal fire, im- 
material, § 72 ; the supposition of three anoint- 
ings of the Lord's feet, § 77 ; the passover of the 
Jews and of the Lord, § 79 ; on the Body and 
Blood of Christ, § 85 ; the lesson of the Agony, 
§ 91 ; tradition of the different appearance of 
the Lord to men of different powers of vision, 
§ 100 ; the reading Jesus Barabbas to be rejected, 
§ 121 ; tradition as to the grave of Adam on 
Calvary, § 126 ; on the darkness at the cruci- 
fixion, § 134. 

St. Mark. 

A Latin commentary attributed to Victor of 
Antioch, published at Ingoldstadt in 1580, is said 
to contain quotations from Origen on cc i. xiv. 
(Ceillier, p. 635). These, if the reference is cor- 
rect, may have been taken from other parts of 
his writings. 

(Fifteen Books ; Thirty-nine Homilies. — H. C.) 

St. Luke. 

There remain of Origen's writings on St. 


(1) Fragments. 

DeUrue, iii. 979-933. 
Lommatzscb, v. 237-244* 

Digitized by 





(2) Notes from s Venice MS. (xxviii.) 
Gallaod, L «. 83-109. 

(3) Additional notes, Mai, Class. Auct. torn. z. 
p. 474 ff.» 

(4) Additional notes from Cod. Coislin. xxiii. 
Cramer, Catena, IL, Oxford, 1SU1. 


Thirty-nine Homilies. 

Delarue, III. 932-679. 
Lommatzscb, t. 85-236. 

Origen wrote four Books on St. Luke (Hier. 
Prol. ad Horn.) from which the detached notes 
were probably taken. 

There is a MS. of the Homilies of sec viii.- 
ii., written in Lombardic characters, in the 
library of Corpus Christ! College, Cambridge 
(So. cccxxxiv.), which is of the highest im- 
portance. This gives in the prologue " viginti 
sei tomos in Matthaeum . . . triginta duos in 
Johannetn." It has lost one leaf containing the 
end of Horn, i. and the beginning of Horn, ii. 

The short Homilies on St. Luke, an early work 
of Origen, were translated by Jerome ; and in 
spite of the objections of Daille (De Soriptis 
quae sub Dm. Areop. et Ign. nomine feruntur, 
pp. 439 f.% which were answered by Pearson 
(TineHc Ignat. pars i. c 7), they appear to be 
certainly genuine, and abound in characteristic 
They deal with the following passages : 
I. Luke 1. 1-3. The four canonical gospels. 
U. „ 1.6. The righteousness of Zacharlah and 

lit „ L 11. The appearance of the angel to 

iv. „ L 13-17a. The angelic message to Za- 
v. „ L22. The dumbness of Zacharlah. 
vi. „ I. 24-32*. The faith of the Vlrgtu. 
Til. „ L 38-46. Mary and Elizabeth, 
vtii. „ 1.46-61*. The Magnificat, 
lx. „ L 56-64. The birth of the Baptist 
z. „ 1.67-76. The Bcnedictus. 
xi. „ I. 8041. 2. The growth of John. 
xlL ,. IL 8-10. The angel's message to the 

xHI. „ IL 13-16. The angelic hymn, 
xlv. „ 11. 21-24. The Circumcision and Puri- 
xv. „ II. 25 f. Simeon. 
xvL m ILS3f. The prophecy of Simeon. 
xttL „ It 33-36. The prophecy of Simeon: 

nill. „ II. 40-40. The finding In the temple, 
xix. „ IL 40-46. Jesus In the temple, 
xx. „ 11.49-61. The subjection of Jesus, 
xxi. n HL 1-4. The mission of John, 
xxli. „ 1U- 6-8. The call of John to repentance, 
xxiii. „ 111. 9-12. The call to different classes : 

the publicans. 
xxrr. „ UL16. The baptisms of water and fire. 
xxv. „ lit 16. Mistaken devotion. 
xxvi. „ UL 17. Divine sifting. 
xxvIL „ HI. 18. The work of John : the descent 

of the Spirit. 
xxvUL „ UL 23 IT. The genealogies. 

• Mat adds m a note : " Plum deincepe ex Origenls 
script!* daturus nunc scbollorum eras in Lucam gustum 
brevrm exhibeo," a promise which be partially fulfilled 
hr publishing the notes en Proverbs In BM. Nina Pa- 
frast, vU. Bom**, 1854. 











Luke lv. 1-4. The first temptation. 
„ Iv. 6-8. The second temptation. 
„ tv. 9-12. The third temptation. 
Jesus at Nazareth. 
Jesus at Nazareth. 
The good Samaritan. 
Make peace with tultie adv 

iv. 14-20. 

Iv. 23-27. 

X. 25-37. 

Xli. 68 f. 

xvii. 33-21 (order Inverted). The king 
dom of Ood within. 

xlx. 29 ff. The ass's colt. 

xlx. 41-45. Cleansing the temple. 

xx. 27 ff., 20 ff. (order Inverted). Ques- 
tions of Ssddocees and Herodlans. 

The passages of greatest interest are those 
which deal with the four canonical gospels 
{Horn. IX spiritual manifestations {Horn, 3), the 
nobility and triumph of faith (Horn. 7), spiritual 
growth (Bom. 11), shepherds of churches and 
nations (Horn. 12), spiritual and risible co-rulers 
of Churches (Horn. 13X Infant Baptism (Bom. 
14), second marriages (Bom. 17), Baptism by 
fire (Bom. 24), man as the object of a spiritual 
conflict (Bom. 35). 

Besides these Homilies Origen wrote other 
Homilies upon the gospel which are now lost. 
References to them are found m Matt. torn. xiii. 
29 ; xvi. 9 ; in Joh. torn, xxxii. 2 

St. John. 

( Thirty-two Books ; some notes. — H. C.) 

The remains of the Commentary on St. John 
are in many respects the most important of 
Origen's exegetical writings. There are left : 

ToV«' i- ii- (>v- t- small fragments), vi. x. xiii. 
xix. (nearly entire), xx. xxviii. xxxii. 

Huet, II. 1-422 « (with Ferrarlus's version). 

» Huet has retained the arbitrary division of the re- 
mains of the Commentary into thirty-two books which is 
given In the Venice MS. followed by Ferrarlus. As Huet 
gives no sections, it may be convenient for reference to 
give the beginulng of these "books." 

Huet. Delarue. 

Tom. I. Tom. I. 

„ U. ,. HI. 

„ III. „ 11.10. 

„ lv. „ 11.20. 

„ V. „ IL25. 

„ vL „ vLl. 

„ vii. „ vl.a. 

„ vilL „ vi.15. 

„ lx. „ vi. 30. 

„ X. » x.1. 

„ xi. „ X. 15. 

„ xlL „ X. 20. 

„ xUL „ xiii. 1. 

„ xiv. „ xiii. 17. 

„ XV. „ xiii. 31. 

„ xvL „ xiii. 43. 

„ xvii. „ xiii. 60. 

„ xvilL „ xiii. 57. 

„ xlx. „ xix. 

„ XX. „ XX. 1. 

„ xxi. „ xx. 7. 

„ xxtL „ xx. 14. 

„ xxiii. „ XX. 19. 

„ xxlv. „ XX. 21. 

„ xxv. „ XX. 24. 

„ xxvt „ xx. 28. 

„ xxvlt. „ XX. 31. 

„ xxvUL „ xxviii. L 

„ xxix. „ xxviii. 6. ' 

„ xxx. „ xxviii. 12, 

„ xxxL „ xxviii. 17. 

„ xxxlL „ xxxii. 

Digitized by 



Delarue, iv. 1-46* (with Ferrarlus' version). 
Lommatsach, L U. 

These remains extend over the following por- 
tions of the gospel : 

Tom. 1. John 1. la. 

„ 11. „ Llb-Ta, 

„ Tl. „ 1. 19-29. 

» X. „ U.1S-M. 

„ sill. „ It. 13-44. 

„ xix. (port) „ viil. 19-24. 

, SI. „ Till. 37-52. 

„ Xxviil. „ XL 39-57. 

„ xxxli. „ xlM.2-33. 

The fragment of torn. iv. treats of the rude 
style of the apostolic writers ; and those of torn. 
r. contain an interesting apology for the length 
of his own work, and a comparison of the son- 
ship of Christ with that of believers. 

The continuous text depends upon fonr MSS. : 

1. Cod. Tenet. 8. Mud, xllll, written in 1374, fol- 

lowed by Ferrarlus. Comp. Fetermaun, ap. 
Lommatxacb, 111. Praef. p. Ix. 

2. Ood. Regiut, Paris, followed by Perlonius, and 

used by Huet. 

3. Cod. Bodleicmut, HlsceU. 58, sacc. xvll., used by 

Delarue. Of this there is a collation by Bentley, 
In a copy of Huet, In the library of Trinity 
College Cambridge, with some emendations, and 
a transcript, with conjectural emendations, by 
H. Thomdlke, in the same library, B. », 11. 
It seems likely that this MS. was one of the 
transcripts made for Tarinus (Delarue, Pratf. 
$ vil.). The published collations are most im- 

4. Cod. Barberinut, used by Delarue. 

All are derived from one archetype, and have 
many lacunae. The text is consequently full of 
errors, which editors have done little to remove. 
A series of conjectures on book ii. is given in a 
Programm by Dr. J. L. Jacobi (Hales, 1878), and 
it is to be hoped that he will continue a work 
which he has begun happily.' 

The commentary on St. John was undertaken 
at the request of Ambrosius (in Joh. torn. i. 
§§ 3, 6), and was " the first-fruits of his labours 
at Alexandria " (id. § 4). It marks an epoch 
in theological literature and in theological 
thought. Perhaps the earlier work of Hera- 
cleon [Hekacleon] may have suggested the idea, 
but Origen implies that the Gospel of St. John, 
by its essential character, claimed his first efforts 
as an interpreter. The first five books, extend- 
ing to John i. 18, were written at Alexandria 
{torn. vi. § 1), and part, in all probability, 
before 228, while Origen was still a layman. 
The work was resumed afterwards at Caesaraea 
{torn. vi. § 1), and continued till after the per- 
secution of Maximums, 235-8 (Euseb. H. E. vi. 
28), but it does not appear that it was ever 
completed. The last book (torn, xxxii.) deals 
with John xiii. 2-33, and contains no such promise 
of a future continuation as is found in some of 
the other books. On the contrary Origen speaks 
at the beginning with doubt as to the fulfilment 
of his purpose of an explanation of the whole 
gospel (§ 1: TdWcpov 0oi\erai rbv T)nav voir 
T(\{<rat. . .tl (/. 1j) fffi, a&rbs tor tlSeln 6 8tis). 

J One conjecture of Bentley's In Book 1L Is of great 
excellence : y 7 »./., km ti to xupis avrov ov ytv&iitvw 
iuv iv Si ovfie'irore. He reads also, $ 13 into ., roL fivo i v, 
as Indeed every one must read, though the edition and 
MSS- give Jr. 


In the time of Eusebius twenty-two books re- 
mained of all that Origen had written " on the 
whole gospel ;" and Jerome (Praef. in Luc.), ac- 
cording to the MSS., speaks of " thirty-four " or 
" thirty-nine " books in all, though the reading 
is commonly altered on the authority of Rufinus 
(Huet, Orig. iii. 2, 7) to " thirty-two." Rufinus 
speaks of thirty-two books only (Apol. ii. § 22), 
and it is probable that the work ceased where it 
now ends. The commentary on the whole gospel 
would have extended to fifty books at least, and 
it is most unlikely that every trace of the later 
books would have been lost by the time of 
Eufinus if they had been published. The lan- 
guage of Eusebius (I. c), on the other hand, it 
too vague to allow any certain conclusion to be 
drawn from it,* 

The first book deals mainly with the funda- 
mental conceptions of "the gospel" (§§ 1-15), 
and of " the beginning " (§§ 16-22), and of " the 
Logo* " (§§ 19-42). The gospels are the first- 
fruits (ItrapxA) °f the Scripture, the gospel of 
St. John is the firstfruits of the gospels (§ 6). As 
the law had a shadow of the future, so too has 
the gospel : spiritual truths underlie historical 
truths (§ 9). The gospel in the widest sense is 
" for the whole world," not for our earth only, 
but for the universal system of the heavens and 
earth (§ 15). 

The discussion of the title Logos lays open a 
critical stage in the history of Christian thought. 
In what sense, it is asked, is the Saviour called 
the Logos ? It had come to be a common opinion 
" that Christ was as it were only a ' word ' of God " 
(§ 23). To meet this view Origen refers to other 
titles, Light, Resurrection, Way, Truth, &c. 
(§§ 24—41), and following the analogy of these 
he comes to the conclusion, that as we arc 
illuminated by Christ as the Light, and quickened 
by Him as the Resurrection, so we are made 
divinely rational by Him as the Logos, i.e. Reason 
(§ 42). By this method he preserves the per- 
sonality of the Lord under the title of Logos, 
which expresses one aspect of His being and not 
His being itself (as a word). At the same time 
he recognises that Christ may also be called the 
Logos (Word) of God as giving expression to His 

In the second book Origen continues his dis- 
cussion of the meaning of the Logos, distinguish- 
ing, in a remarkable passage (§ 2), God and 
Reason taken absolutely (o 8t£s, 6 \6yos) from 
God and Reason used as predicates (8e6s, \i-ybs). 
" The Father is the foundation of Deity, the Son 
of reason " (§ 3). Afterwards he discusses the 
sense of the words "came into being through 
him (Si' ufrroO)," and the relation of the Holy 
Spirit to the Son (§ 6) ; and further, what 
"all things," and what that is which is called 
"nothing (i.e. evil) which became without 
Him but is not (§ 7). The conceptions of life 
and light, of darkness and death, are then 
examined (§§ 11 ff.). In treating of the mission of 
John (§§ 24 ff.) Origen questions whether he may 
not have been an angel who sought to minister 
on earth to his Lord (§ 25) ; and characterU- 

* It must however be added that in the note on Vast, 
xxvll. 44, In Comm. ter. in Matt, y 133, Origen says : 
** apad Johannen stent potnimos exposnlmtu de dnobua 
latronlbus." The reference may be to some separate com- 

Digitized by 



tically remarks that he was "the roice" pre- 
ceding " the Word " (§ 26). Perhaps it is not 
less characteristic that he blames those who, 
like Heraeleon (torn. vi. § 2), hold that John i. 
16-18 are the words of the evangelist and not of 
the Baptist. 

The sixth book, as has been already noticed, 
marks a new beginning. In this, alter describing 
with calm dignity the circumstances which had 
interrupted his work, he examines in detail John 
i 19-29. The question, Art thou Eliot f leads 
to a remarkable discussion on the pre-existence 
of souls, and the entrance of the soul into the 
body, " a vast and difficult subject," which he 
reserves for special investigation (§ 7). The 
words of the Baptist (i. 26) give occasion for a 
minute comparison with the parallels in the 
other gospels (§§ 16 ft), in the course of which 
(§ 17) Origen strikingly contrasts the baptisms 
of John and Christ, and explains Christ's pre- 
sence " in the midst of the Jews " (r. 26) of His 
universal presence as the Logos (§ 22). The 
l mention of Bethany (v. 28) leads him to a hasty 
adoption of the correction " Bethabara " (§ 24), 
which he justifies by the frequent errors as to 
names in the LXX. His brief exposition of the 
title of Christ " as the Lamb of God " (§§ 35 ft) 
u full of interest ; and in connexion with this 
he notices the power of the blood of martyrs to 
overcome evil (§ 36). 
The tenth book deals with the history of the 
( first cleansing of the temple and its immediate 
results (ii. 12-25). At the beginning Origen 
thinks that the discrepancy between the evan- 
gelists as to the sojourn at Capernaum (». 12) is 
such that its solution can be found only in the 
spiritual sense (§ 2), to which every minute point 
tcmtributes, though in itself outwardly trivial 
sad unworthy of record (§§ 2 ft). In the fol- 
lowing sections the phrase " the passover of the 
J«a " leads to an exposition of Christ as the 
true Passover (§§ 11 ft). The cleansing of the 
temple is shewn to have an abiding significance 
t in life (J 16) ; and Origen thinks that the sign 
which Christ offered is fulfilled in the raising of 
the Christian church, built of living stones, out 
«f trials and death, " after three days," — the 
Ant of present suffering, the second of the con- 
tamination, the third of the new order (§ 20). 

The thirteenth book is occupied with the inter- 
pretation of part of the history of the Samaritan 
woman and the healing of the nobleman's son 
(iv. 13-54). It is chiefly remarkable for the 
number of considerable quotations from Hera- 
deon's Commentary which it contains, more than 
tvice as many as are contained in the other 
t>«ks. These still require careful collection and 
oiticism. Lommatzsch failed to fulfil the pro- 
mise of his preface (I. p. xiii.). Passages ot 
interest in regard to Origen's own views and 
Erthod are those on the relation of Christ's 
personal teaching to the Scriptures (§5), on the 
fire husbands as representing the senses (§ 9), 
«o the incorporeity of God (§ 25), on the joy of 
the sower and reaper, and the continuity of work 
<H 46 f.% on the unhonoured prophet (§ 54), on 
•piritual dependence (§ 58), on the distinction 
«f signs and wonders (§ 60). 

Of the nineteenth book, which is imperfect at 
tiie beginning and end, a considerable fragment 
remains (viii. 19-25). In this the remarks on 
the treasury (John viii. 20) as the scene of the 



Lord's discourses (§ 2), and on the power of faith 
(§ 6), are characteristic. 

The twentieth book (viii. 37-53) has much that 
is of importance for Origen's opinions. It begins 
with an examination of some points in connexion 
with the pre-existence and character of souls ; 
and later on Origen, in a striking passage (§29), 
illustrates the inspiration of evil passions. Of a 
different kind, but still of interest, are the pas- 
sages in which he treats of love as " the sun " 
in the life of Christians (§ 15) ; of the ambi- 
guities in the word " when " (§ 24) ; of the need 
of help for spiritual sight (§ 26) ; on spiritual 
influences (§ 29). 

The most remarkable passage in the twenty- 
eighth book (c. xi. 39-57) is perhaps that in which 
Origen speaks of the power of self-sacrifice among 
the Gentiles as illustrating the vicarious suffer- 
ings of Christ (§ 14). Other remarks worthy of 
special notice are those on the lifting up of the 
eyes (John xi. 41) (§ 4), on the lesson of the 
death of Lazarus (§ 6), on the duty of prudence 
in time of persecution (§ 18), on the passover 
of the Jews and of the Lord (§ 20). 

The tharty-tecond book (c. xiii. 2-33) treats of 
St. John's record of the Last Supper. Origen 
discusses the feet-washing at length, and lays 
down that it is not to be perpetuated literally 
(§§ 6 f.) : he dwells on the growth of faith (§ 9), 
on the difference of " soul " and " spirit " (§ 11% 
on the character of Judas and moral deteriora- 
tion (§ 12), on the sop given to Judas (§ 16). 

From this slight sketch of the ruins of Origen's 
Commentary some idea may be formed of its 
character. It is for us the beginning of a new 
type of literature. It has great faults of style. 
It is diffusive, disproportioned, full of repeti- 
tions, obscure and heavy in form of expression. 
It is wholly deficient in historical insight. It 
is continually passing into fantastic speculations. 
But on the other hand it contains not a few 
" jewels five words long." It abounds in noble 
thoughts and subtle criticisms. It grapples with 
great difficulties : it unfolds great ideas. And, 
above all, it retains a firm hold on the human 
life of the Lord. 


(Seventeen Homilies. — H. C.) 


(1) A single fragment from "the fourth 
homily on the Act* " is preserved in the Philo- 

Huet, iL 422. 
Delarue, fv. 
Lommatzsch. v. 245. 

(2) A few notes are given in Cramer's Catena, 
col. iii. 184, on the following passages : 

tr.32; vil.3,53; xxl 38.* 


(Fifteen Books.— H. C.) 

(1) Fragments from the first and ninth books 
contained in the Philocalia. 

Huet, Ii. 423 ft*. 

Delarue, lv. 

Lommatzsch, v. 247 ft*. 

• The MS. In the Chapter library at Worcester, said In 
the Catal. Codd. Angl. to contain " Orlg. In Num. xll. 
Propb. Ep. Con. Act," does not unhappily answer to the 

I 2 

Digitized by 




(2) A number of important notes are contained 
in Cramer's Catena, torn. iv. 1844, on the fol- 
lowing passages : 

1. 1, 10. 

II. 8, 16, 27. 

ill. a, «, s, is, u, si, as, a;, as, so, a. 

It. a. 


Ten books of Commentaries, translated and 
compressed from the fifteen books of Origen, by 
Rufinus, at the request of Heraclius. Rufinus 
seems to have had difficulty in finding a com- 
plete and satisfactory text to work upon (Praef.), 
and he undoubtedly used considerable freedom, 
both in other respects and in adapting the Com- 
mentary not unfrequently to the current Latin 
text of the Epistle. 

Many MSS. ascribe the translation to Jerome, 
and alter the preface and epilogue in this sense. 
The work is so given in the earliest editions. 
Erasmus pointed out the blunder. 

The earliest MS. which I have seen is Brit. 
Mas. Harl. 3030, saec. x. 

The translation brings into prominence one 
important point in regard to the critical use to 
be made of the text of the translations of Origcn's 
works which has not received proper attention. 
Unless Origen's Greek reading is expressly noted, 
the reading given must be regarded as a Latin 
reading and not as Greek. 

The language of Rufinus himself seems to shew 
beyond doubt that he gave a current Latin text, 
and not a version of Origen's Greek text, as the 
basis of his adaptation of Origen's Commentary. 
Thus, after he has given the Latin version, he 
remarks several times that the Greek is better 
or more expressive, and seeks to express the full 
meaning of the original. Thus on vi. 11 he re- 
marks upon the rendering " existimate vos mor- 
tuos esse peccato," "melius quidem in Graeco 
habetuT ' cogitate vos mortuos esse peccato;'" 
And again upon xii. 2 : " ut probetis quae sit 
voluntas Dei, qitod bonum et beneplacitum et per- 
fection," " sciendum est quod in Graeco habetur, 
' ut probetis quae sit voluntas Dei bona et bene- 
placita et perfecta,' " " but we," he continues, 
•' follow the custom of the Latins." The criticism 
may be faulty, but it shews his usage. This is 
marked again upon xii. 3, where he says, "we 
must first observe that when we have omnibus 
qui sunt inter vos," the text which he has given, 
"it is in the Greek omni qui est in vobis ;" and 
in viii. 3 he gives " de peccato," the common 
Latin rendering, and adds, " it is more truly 
in the Greek text, pro peccato." In one place, 
xv. 30, he quotes the Greek words which cor- 
respond to the Vulgate rendering, "ut adjuvetis 
me in orationibus," adding, "in quo hoc est quod 
indicatur, ut adjuvetis me in agone orationum, . . " 
But perhaps the most remarkable passage is 
xii. 13, where he gives the rendering "usibus 
sanctorum commnnicantes," with the note, " me- 
mini in Latinis exemplaribus magis haberi 'me- 
moriis sanctorum communicantes,' verum nos nee 
consuetudinem turbamus, nee veritati praeju- 
dicamus, maxime cum utrumque conveniat 
aedificationi." There are difficulties in the inter- 
pretation of his words, but they shew at least 
that the Latin text had a principal place in his 
thoughts.* The reference to the conflict of Latin 
copies is illustrated by his note on xii. 11 : 


" Domino servientes," " scio autem in nonnullis 
Latinorum exemplaribus haberi 'tempori ser- 
vientes.' " 

Apart from these statements the character of 
the text is decisive. It is essentially an old 
Latin text throughout. Sometimes it is directly 
in conflict with Origen's Greek text, or his inter- 
pretation, or with the groups of authorities with 
which Origen agrees : 

111. 9. om. ov vavrvxi. 

111. 30. In conspectu Del; In commentary, i» 

cowtpectu eiut. 
111. 22. tn omna tt super — against Origen's 

Greek text. 
V. 8, 9. quonlsm st cum . . .multo magis justlfi- 

catl— against Origen's Greek text and the 

V. 18. per unum paxatum— against Orlgen'a 

Greek text, 
vlli. 16. ipse enim, id. 
ix. 19. quid ergo, id. 
ix. 33. et omntl qui, id. 
x. 3. suain justitiam, id. 
xi. 36. in saecula taeculorvm. 
xiii. 9. Add. non folium testimonium dices— 

against Origen's Greek text, 
xv. 8. Jeium CkrUtum, id. 
xv. 14. om. nav. 
xv. 19. spirltus Del ; tn commentary, splrttna 

xv. 30. om. i»Jp <ftov. 
xvt 19. am. ii (1«). 

Sometimes it gives readings which are solely 
or characteristically Latin : 

I. 32. non solum qui fadnnt ilia sed etiam qui. 
1L 3. o homo omni*. 
Iv. 23. reputatum est el adjustitian. 
Iv. 34. Jesum Christum. 
vii. 19. non eoim quod volo/acio oonum. 
viii. 35. quls ergo. 
ix. t. om. iii^y. 
ix. 25. et non dilectam dilecUm et non m. c 

m. c 
x. 18. om. fuvovvy*. 
xl. 5. salvae factae sunt. 

Sometimes, on the other hand, it expresses the 
Greek more accurately than other Latin texts : 

il. 19. 


In a few cases it gives readings which are 
apparently unique, of the kind which are found 
in old Latin texts : 

11.9. ettrlbulatlo. 

xt. 24. nam si et to. 

xlv.30. tioKte. 

xvi. 9. adjutorem meum. 

There remain a number of important readings, 
in which the Latin teit agrees with Origen'a 
Greek text or the commentary : 
v. 14. In eoa qui peccaverunL 
vlli. 1. om. firi . . .wvfvfia. 
VI1L36. Dei. 
vlli. 37. jiereum. 
ix. 31. om. 5wco*o<TviTjt (2°). 
x. 15. om. eiayy. tirfrnr (t). 
Xii. 17. om. ov povov. . .aAAd koL 
xlv. 9. vixit. 
xlv. 21. om. ij ff*a»4. % irtmi. 

» See the remarks on detlinolus, proedestinatus, lib. I. 
$ 6, and on subditui (IU. 19), lib. 111. $ 6. 

Digitized by 



To these perhaps may be added 
xlv. 32. fldem quam babes. 
XT. IS. out. o&cA^oC 

It might appear at first sight that these read- 
ings are due to Origen's text of the epistle which 
Rufinus had before him, but it will be found 
that there is independent old Latin authority for 
every one of these readings, except that in x. 15, 
where, however, there is considerable variety of 

A careful consideration of this evidence leads 
to the conclusion, that we hare substantially in 
the text of the epistle given by Rufinus an old 
Latin copy of the highest value, and charac- 
teristic renderings point out its affinities. It 
resemble* closely, in its general form, the text 
of Sedulitu, and of some of the copies used by 
Augustine. The extent and nature of the co- 
incidence may be estimated roughly from the 
following peculiar phrases : 

i. 15. quod in me promptos sum (comp. Am- 

H.4. anstentatlonla et patlentlae (Hler.) 
U. 8. diffldunt quldem . . .obtemperant. 
UL». quid ergo tenemus ampllus? caueatl 

(Sedul. MSS.) 
vi. 8. et convivemus el (Sedul.) 
H. IX ad obediendum deskterils elas (Aug.) 
vUL 22. congemhclt et condolet (Sedul.) 
lx. 22 f. apt* In perditlonem ut nous faceret 
(Aug., Sedul.) 
xlli. S. neceeae est subdltos esse (Sedul.) 
xlv. 5. alter Judical altemos dies (Aug.) 
xv. J6. commemorans vos per gratlam dat&ni 

Some renderings are apparently not found 
elsewhere, e.g.: 

L 11. ut allquod trsdsm vobls donum spiri- 
Sv. 17. ante eum cui credldlt Deum. 
xL 14. in aemulatlonem lmmittam. 
xv. 31. ut minlsterium boo meum acceptnm 

xvi. t. Inltium Aslae. 

xvi, 25. aacramentl aaeculonun in silentlo habttl, 
manifestatl autem modo. 

A comparison of these renderings with the 
corresponding renderings in the Codex Boer-. 
Karianus, suggests that Rufinus probably adopted 
the Latin text of a Graeco- Latin copy, which had 
been in some details influenced by the Greek, 
but which preserved essentially its original com- 
plexion. The continuous Latin text cannot, how- 
ever, be quoted as representing Origen's reading. 

This is not the place to extend farther the 
inquiry into the textual characteristics of the 
biblical quotations in the translations of Origen's 
works. It will be sufficient to have called atten- 
tion, in one signal example, to the singular and 
unexpected features of interest which they ofl'er. 

The commentary gives a continuous discussion 
of the text, often discursive, but still full of 
acute and noble conceptions. Some of the most 
striking passages may be indicated. 

Book l. (c i.). 

$y4ff. On the Sonship of the Lord. 
1 18. Responsibility. 

Book II. (c ii. 2— iii. 4). 

§ % The duty of teachers. Comp. J 1L. 
y ». The law of nature. 
y 13. Spiritual circumcision. 



Book in. (c iii. 5-31). 

y 2. The universal sinfulness of man. 

y 6. The law of nature of universal obligation 

(p. 1*1 L., of great interest). 
y 8. Christ our propitiation. 
y a. Justification by faith. 

Book iv. (c iv. 1-v. 11). 

$ 1. Tbe need of grace (non ex opcrtbus radix 

justitlae sed ex radlce Juatidae fructus 

operum crescit, p. 241 L.) 
y B. Faith of grace: the "likeness" of God to to 

y «. Hope. 
y 7. The experience of faith of Abraham fulfilled 

in the experience of Christians (pp. 

283 If. L., of great Interest). 
y ». Glory In tribulation. 

Book v. (c. v. 12-vi. 11). 

y 1. The manlfoldness of the divine treasures 

(pp. 322 ff. I*, of great interest). 
$ 2. Justification through Christ. 
y 8. The law of nature the occasion of sin. 
5 8. Baptism (and Confirmation) of Infanta. 
y 10. Spiritual death. 

Book VI. (c vi. 12-viii. 18). 

8. The operation of the law of nature. 

j B. The conflict in man (ipse ca quasi In semet- 

lpao geri descripslt). 
v 12. The weakness of tbe law. 
y 13. The action of the Spirit through man. 

Book VII. (c. viii. 14-ix. 33). 

$$ 3 ff. The inheritance of Christians. 
i 7. The work of the Spirit, 
y 8. Foreknowledge not the cause of that which 

is foreknown. 
y 11. The discipline of suffering (p. 140, of great 

y 13. St. Paul's spirit of self-sacrifice. 
y 17. Divine mysteries Insoluble. 

Book VIII. (c I. 1-xi. 36). 

$ 2. Christ and the Law. 
y (. The several duties of men. 
$ 10. Tbe unity of rational beings. 
} 11. Purification by fire for those who neglect 
the Gospel. 

Book IX. (c xii. 1-xiv. 15). 

y I. The worship of God. 

y 3. Girts of grace according to tbe measure of 

faith here and hereafter. 
$$25,30. Civil duties. 

Book x. (c. xiv. 16-end 

$ 3. Things clean and unclean. 

$ 0. Unselfishness. 

$ 10. Progressive knowledge. 

$ 14. Christians' help to Christians. 

It may be added that Origen's treatment of 
the eighth chapter, as represented by Rufinus, 
is, on the whole, disappointing. It might have 
been expected to call out his highest powers of 
imagination and hope. His silence, no less than 
his rash conjectures as to the persons named in 
the sixteenth chapter, is a singular proof of the 
complete absence of any authoritative tradition 
as to the persons of the early Roman church. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



For the passage (x. 43) which refers to Mar- 
cion's mutilation of the epistle by removing the 
doxology (xri. 25-27) and (though this is dis- 
puted) the last two chapters, it must be enough 
to refer to the papers by Bp. Lightfoot and Dr. 
Hort in the Journal of Philology, 1869, ii. 
264 ft". ; 1871, Hi. 51 ff., 193 ff. 

1-2 Corinthians. 

(Eleven Homilies on 2 Cor. — H. C.) 


Jerome mentions (Ep. ad Fammach. xlix. § 3) 
that Origen commented on this epistle at 
length ; and Origen himself refers to what he 
had said on 1 Cor. i. 2 {Bom. in Luc. xvii. «./.). 

A very important collection of notes on the 
first epistle is given in Cramer's Catena, vol. v. 
1844, which deal with the following passages : 

1 3 (bis), 4, 7 (bin), 9 (bis), 10, 11, n (bis), 18, 

30 (bis), 21, 22 f., 26 (ter). 
11. 1, 3, 6 f., 7, 9, 10, 14 I (bis), 
ill. 2, 3, 7, 9, 16, 21. 
iv. 1 f., 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 30. 
V. 5 (W»), 9. 

vi. 2, 4, 9 f., 12, 13 (bis), IS, 18, 19 f. 
vlL 1 r, t (bis), 14, 18 f, 31, 25. 
ix. 7, 10, 16, 19, 23, 24. 
III. 3, 28. 
Xlll. 1 f., 3, 4, 12. 
Xlv. 31, 34, 33. 
XV. 2, 20, 37. 
XVL 10, 13. 

It appears that the notes were taken from 
homilies (irepl Ztv ko2 irpefrijc iK4yofuy, c. iii. 1 ; 
TrapajcaXoufiiy ko1 6/ias a TtaSZts, c. vi. 9). Some 
of the notes contain passages of considerable 
interest, as that on the vicarious death of 
Gentile heroes (c. i. 18 ; comp. Horn, in Joh. 
torn, xxviii. § 14), on the sovereignty of believers 
(c. iii. 21), on evangelic " counsels " (c. vii. 25), 
on the public teaching of women (c. xiv. 34, with 
reference to Montanism). In other places Origen 
gives the outline of a creed (c. i. 9, 20), and 
touches on Baptism (c. i. 14) and Holy Communion 
(c. vii. 5). He describes the Jewish search for 
leaven (c. v. 7) ; and supposes that many books 
of the Old Testament were lost at the Captivity 
(c. ii. 9). 

The text, as in all the notes in Cramer, is full 
of obvious blunders and requires careful editing, 
-with a fresh collation of the MS. 


(Fifteen Books ; seven Homilies. — H. C.) 

Jerome, in the Prologue to his Commentary on 
the Galatians, mentions that Origen wrote five 
Books on this epistle, as well as various Homilies 
and Notes (tractatus et excerpta), and that he in- 
terpreted it with brief annotations (commatico 
sermone) in the tenth book of his Stromateis 
(Proem, in Comm. ad Qal. ; Ep. ad August, cxi. 
§§ 4, 6). 

Three fragments of the Commentary are con- 
tained in the Latin translation of Pamphilus's 

Jerome does not seem to have made much use 
of Origen in his own Commentary ; but this work 
has not yet been carefully examined with a view 
to determine how far it is original. 


(Three Books H. C.) 

Origen's commentary on the Ephesians may 
still be practically recovered. Jerome, in the 


Prologue to his own Commentary, says that " his 
readers should know that Origen wrote three 
books on the epistle, which he had partly fol- 
lowed " (Mud quoque in praefatione commoneo ut 
sciatis Origenem tria volumina in hanc Epistotam 
conscripsisse, quern et nos ex parte sccuti sumus). 
The extent of his debt could only be estimated 
by conjecture, till the publication of the Paris 
Catena (Cramer, 1842). This contains very large- 
extracts from Origen's commentary, sometimes- 
with his name and sometimes anonymous, and in. 
nearly all cases Jerome has corresponding words 
or thoughts. Nor is it too much to say that a 
careful comparison of the Greek fragments with 
Jerome's Latin would make it possible to recon- 
struct in substance a very large part of Origen's 
work ; and it is strange that the work has not 
yet been attempted. The corresponding notes 
on the description of the Christian warfare (vi. 
11 ff.) offer a good example of Jerome's mode of 
dealing with his archetype. 

The comments of Origen are almost con- 
tinuous, and deal with the following passages : 
Chap. i. 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23. 

„ 11. 1 ff., 8, 12, 13, 17, 19 ff. 

„ Hi. 1 ff., 12, 14, 15. 

„ lv. 3, 6, 9-15, 17, 18, 20, 24-33. 

„ v. 3-6, 10-12, 16-20, 29, 31, 32, 

„ vl. 1, 9-16, 18, 19, 21, 23. 

A fragment on Eph. v. 28 f. is preserved in 
the Latin translation of the Apology of Pam- 
philus. This is not found in the Greek notes. 

Philippians. Colossians. Titus. Philemon. 

(One Book on Philippians; two Books on 
Colossians ; one on Titus ; one on Philemon ; one- 
Homily on Titus.— H. C.) 

Short fragments from the third Book on the 
epistle to the Colossians, and from the Com- 
mentary on the epistle to Philemon, and more 
considerable fragments from the Book on the 
epistle to Titus (Tit. iii. 10, 11), are found in 
the translation of Pamphilus's Apology. 

No Greek notes on these epistles have been 

1 Thessalonians. 

(Three Books ; two Homilies. — H. C) 

A considerable fragment from the third book 
of the Commentary on 1 Thess. is preserved in 
Jerome's translation : Ep. ad Minerv. et Alex. 9 
(1 Thess. iv. 15-17). 


(Eighteen Homilies.— H. C.) 

Origen wrote Homilies and Commentaries on 
the epistle to the Hebrews. Two fragments of 
the Homilies are preserved by Eusebius (if. E. 
vi. 25), in which Origen gives his opinion on the 
composition of the epistle. 

Some inconsiderable fragments from the 
" Books " are found in the translation of Pam- 
philus's Apology. 

Catholic Epistles. 

The quotations from Origen, which are given 
in Cramer's Catena on the catholic epistles, axe 
apparently taken from other treatises, and not 
from commentaries on the books themselves : 
James i. 4, 13 ; 1 Pet. i. 4 («7c rrjs ipitJivtita tit 
to Kara *p6yyu<ru> SeoS) ; 1 John ii. 14 («Vt rov 
turixarot r&v Qvpirccv T. A'.). 


Origen purposed to comment upon the Apo- 
calypse (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 49), but it is un- 
certain whether he carried out his design. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


B. Dogmatic WRmaos.* 
On the Resurrection, 

Delarne, t. 32-37. 

Lommatsacb, xvil. 53-64. 

Origen's writings "On the resurrection," which 
are said to have consisted of two books and of a 
dialogue in two books (Hier.ap. Rnf.Apoi. ii. §20; 
comp. Hier. Ep. xxziii. 3 [H. C.]), preceded, in 
part at least, his essay on First Principles (c. 230). 
They were Tiolently assailed by Methodius, and 
were considered by Jerome to abound in errors 
(Ep. IzzziT. 7). Probably they excited opposi- 
tion by assailing the gross literalism which pre- 
vailed in the popular view of the future life. 
The fragments which remain are consistent with 
the true faith, and express it with a wise caution, 
affirming the permanence through death of the 
whole man and not of the soul only. Thus Origen 
dwells rightly on St. Paul's image of the seed 
(Fraijm. 2) ; and maintains a perfect correspon- 
dence between the present and the future (qualis 
fuerit uniuscujusque praeparatio in hac vita 
talis erit et resnrrectio ejus), and speaks very 
happily of the " ratio substantias corporalis " as 
that which is permanent. 

On first Principles (rtpl ipx**- De prim- 

(Four Books Periaroon, — H. C.) 

Detune, 1. 42-196. 
Tjommatasca, xzL 


(1) Considerable fragments of books iii. iv., 
preserved in the Philocalia. 

(2) A few others mainly in the letter of 
Justinian to Menas. 


(1) A complete translation by Rufiuus, who 
took great liberties with the text. 

(2) Fragments of a translation by Jerome, 
given in a letter to Avitus (Ep. 124). 

The book On first principles is the most com- 
plete and characteristic expression of Origen's 
opinions. It was written while he was in the 
fall course of his work at Alexandria. He was 
probably at the time not much more than thirty 
years old and still a hiyman, but there is no 
reason to think that he modified, in any im- 
portant respects, the views which he unfolds in 
it. The book, it must be borne in mind, was 
not written for simple believers but for scholars, 
— for those who were familiar with the teaching 
of Gnosticism and Platonism ; and with a view 
to questions which then first become urgent 
when men have risen to a wide view of nature 
and life. Non-Christian philosophers moved in 
a region of subtle abstractions, " ideas " : Origen 
felt that Christianity converted these abstrac- 
tions into realities, persons, facts of a complete 
life ; and he strove to express what he felt in 
the modes of thought and language of his own 
age. He aimed at presenting the highest know- 
ledge (yrSati) as an objective system. But in 
doing this he had no intention of fashioning two 
Christianities, a Christianity for the learned and 



• It is not certain what the MonobMia, of which 
Jerome (peaks (Ep. xxxllL 3), weie. Tbey may have 
been detached essays on particular points. 

* The edition of Bedepenning (E. R.), Lipsiae, 1836, 
k useful and convenient. The translation by Schnltier, 
Stougart, 1835, has a suggestive Introduction. 

a Christianity for the simple. The faith was 
one, one essentially and unalterably, but infinite 
in fulness, so that the trained eye could see 
more of its harmonies as it necessarily looked for 
more. Fresh wants made fresh truths visible. 
He who found much had nothing over : he who 
found little had no lack. 

The book is the earliest attempt to form a 
system of Christian doctrine, or rather a philo- 
sophy of the Christian faith. In this respect it 
marks an epoch in Christian thought, but no 
change in the contents of the Christian creed. 
The elements of the dogmatic basis are assumed 
on the authority of the church. The author's 
object is, as he says, to shew how they can be 
arranged as a whole, by the help either of the 
statements of Scripture or of the methods of exact 
reasoning. And however strange or startling 
the teaching of Origen may seem to us, it is 
necessary to bear in mind that this is the ac- 
count which he gives of it. He takes for granted 
that all that he brings forward is in harmony 
with received teaching. He professes to accept 
as final the same authorities as ourselves. 

The treatise consists of four books. The com- 
position is not strictly methodical. Digressions 
and repetitions interfere with the symmetry of 
the plan. But to speak generally the first book 
deals with Ood and creation (religious statics) ; 
the second and third books with creation and 
providence, with man and redemption (religious 
dynamics) ; and the fourth book with Holy Scrip- 
ture. Or to put the case somewhat differently, 
the first three books contain the exposition of a 
Christian philosophy, gathered round the three 
ideas of God, the world, and the rational soul, 
and the last gives the basis of it. Even in the 
repetitions (as on " the restoration of things ") 
it is not difficult to see that each successive treat- 
ment corresponds with a new point of sight. 

In the first book Origen sets out the final 
elements of all religious philosophy, God, the 
world, rational creatures. After dwelling on 
the essential nature of God as incorporeal, in- 
visible, incomprehensible, and on the charac- 
teristic relations of the Persons of the Holy 
Trinity to man, as the authors of being, and 
reason, and holiness, be gives a summary view 
of the end of human life, for the elements of a 
problem cannot be really understood until we 
have comprehended its scope. The end of life 
then, according to Origen, is the progressive 
assimilation of man to God by the voluntary 
appropriation of His gifts. Gentile philosophers 
had proposed to themselves the idea of assimila- 
tion to God, but Origen adds the means. By 
the unceasing action of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit towards us, renewed at each succes- 
sive stage of our advance, we shall be able, he 
says, with difficulty perchance, at some future 
time, to look on the holy and blessed life ; and 
when once we have been enabled to reach that, 
after many struggles, we ought so to continue in 
it that no weariness may take hold on us. Each 
fresh enjoyment of that bliss ought to enlarge 
or deepen our desire for it ; while we are ever 
receiving or holding, with more ardent love and 
larger grasp, the Father and the Son and the 
Holy Spirit h. 3, 8). 

But it will be said that this condition of pro- 
gress, effort, assimilation, involves the possibility 
of declension, indolence, the obliteration of the 

Digitized by 




divine image. If man can go forward he can go 
backward. Origen accepts the consequence, and 
finds in it an explanation of the actual state of 
men and angels. The present position of each 
rational being corresponds, in his judgment, with 
the use which he has hitherto made of the reve- 
lations and gifts of God. No beings were created 
originally immutable in character. Some by 
diligent obedience have been raised to the loftiest 
places in the celestial hierarchy : others by per- 
verse self-will and rebellion have sunk into the 
condition of demons. Others occupy an inter- 
mediate place, and are capable of being raised 
again to their first state, and so upward, if they 
avail themselves of the helps which are provided 
by the love of God. " Of these," he adds, " I 
think, as far as I can form an opinion, that this 
order of the human race was formed, which in 
the future age, or in the ages which succeed, 
when there shall be a new heaven and a new 
earth, shall be restored to that unity which 
the Lord promises in His intercessory prayer." 
" Meanwhile, " he continues, " both in the ages 
which are seen and temporal, and in those which 
are not seen and eternal, all rational beings who 
have fallen are dealt with according to the order, 
the character, the measure of their deserts. Some 
in the first, others in the second, some, again, 
even in the last times, through greater and 
neavieT sufferings, borne through many ages, 
reformed by sharper discipline, and restored . . . 
stage by stage . . . reach that which is invisible 
and eternal ..." Only one kind of change is 
impossible. There is no such transmigration of 
souls as Plato pictured, after the fashion of the 
Hindoos, in the legend of Er the Armenian. No 
rational being can sink into the nature of a 
brute (i. 8, 4 ; comp. c. Cell. iv. 83). 

The progress of this discussion is interrupted 
by one singular episode which is characteristic 
of the time. How, Origen asks, are we to re- 
gard the heavenly bodies, — the sun and moon and 
stars ? Are they animated and rational ? Are 
they the temporary abodes of souls which shall 
hereafter be released from them? Are they 
finally to be brought into the great unity, when 
"God shall be all in all"? The questions, he 
admits, are bold ; but he answers all in the 
affirmative, on what he held to be the authority 
of Scripture (i. 7 ; comp. c. Ceh. v. 10 f.). 

In the second book Origen pursues, at greater 
length, that view of the visible world, as a place 
of discipline and preparation, which has been 
already indicated. He follows out as a move- 
ment what he had before regarded as a condi- 
tion. The endless variety in the situations of 
men, the inequality of their material and moral 
circumstances, their critical spiritual differences, 
all tend to shew, he argues, that the position of 
each has been determined in accordance with 
previous conduct. And God, in His ineffable 
wisdom, has uuited all together with absolute 
justice, so that all these creatures, most diverse 
in themselves, combine to work out His purpose, 
while " their very variety tends to the one end 
of perfection." All things were made for the 
sake of man and rational beings. It is through 
man, therefore, that this world, as God's work, 
becomes complete and perfect (comp. c. Cels. 
iv. 99). The individual is never isolated, though 
he is never irresponsible. At every moment he 
if acting and acted upon, adding something to 


the sum of the moral forces of the world, fur- 
nishing that out of which God is fulfilling His 
purpose. The difficulties of life, as Origen re- 
gards them, give scope for heroic effort and 
loving service. The fruits of a moral victory 
become more permanent as they are gained 
through harder toil. The obstacles and hind- 
rances by which man is hemmed in are incen- 
tives to exertion. His body is not a " prison," 
in the sense of a place of punishment only : it is 
a beneficent provision for the discipline of beings 
to whom it furnishes such salutary restraints as 
are best fitted to further their moral growth. 

This view of the dependence of the present on 
the past — to use the forms of human speech — 
seemed to Origen to remove a difficulty which 
weighed heavily upon thoughtful men in the first 
age, as it has weighed heavily upon thoughtful 
men in our own generation. Very many said 
then that the sufferings and disparities of life, 
the contrasts of the law and the gospel, point to 
the action of rival spiritual powers, or to a 
Creator limited by something external to Him- 
self (ii. 9, 5). Not so, was Origen's reply ; 
they simply reveal that what we see is a frag- 
ment of a vast system in which we can do no 
more than trace tendencies, consequences, signs, 
and rest upon the historic fact of the Incarna- 
tion. In this respect he ventured to regard the 
entire range of being as " one thought " answer- 
ing to the absolutely perfect will of God, while 
" we that are but parts can see but part, now this, 
now that." And this seems to be the true mean- 
ing of his famous assertion, that the power of 
God in creation was finite and not infinite. It 
would, that is, be inconsistent with our ideas of 
perfect order, and therefore with our idea of the 
Divine Being, that the sum of first existences 
should not form one whole. "God made all 
things in number and measure." The omnipo- 
tence of God is defined (as we are forced to con- 
ceive) by the absolute perfections of His nature. 
"He cannot deny Himself" (ii. 9, 1 ; iv. 35). 

But it may be objected more definitely that 
our difficulties do not lie only in the circum- 
stances of the present : that the issues of the 
present, so far as we can see them, bring diffi- 
culties no less overwhelming : that even if we 
allow that this world is fitted to be a place of 
discipline for fallen beings who are capable of 
recovery, it is only too evident that the discipline 
does not always work amendment. Origen admits 
the fact, and draws from it the conclusion, that 
other systems of penal purification and moral 
advance follow. According to him world grows 
out of world, so to speak, till the consummation 
is reached. What is the nature or position or 
constitution of the worlds to come he does not 
attempt to define. It is enough to believe that, 
from first to last, the will of Him who is most 
righteous and most loving is fulfilled : and that 
each loftier region gained is the entrance to some 
still more glorious abode above, so that all being 
becomes, as it were, in the highest sense, a 
journey of the saints from mansion to mansion 
up to the very throne of God. 

In order to give clearness to this view Ori- 
gen follows out, in imagination, the normal 
course of the progressive training, purifying and 
illumination of men in the future. He pictures 
them passing from sphere to sphere, and resting 
in each so as to receive such revelations of the 

Digitized by 



providence of God as they can grasp; lower 
phenomena are successively explained to them, 
and higher phenomena are indicated. As they 
look backward old mysteries are illuminated: 
as they look forward unimagined mysteries stir 
their souls with divine desire. Everywhere 
their Lord is with them, and they advance from 
strength to strength through the perpetual 
supply of spiritual food. This food, he says, is 
the contemplation and understanding of God, 
according to its proper measure in each case, 
and as suits a nature which is made and created. 
And this measure — this due harmony and pro- 
portion between aim and power — it is right that 
every one should regard even now, who is begin- 
ning to see God, that is, to understand Him in 
purity of heart (ii. 11,6 f.). 

But while Origen opens this infinite prospect 
ef scene upon scene to faith or hope or imagina- 
tion, call it as we may, he goes on to shew that 
Scripture concentrates our attention upon the 
neit scene, summed up in the words, resurrec- 
tion, judgment, retribution. Nowhere is he 
more studiously anxious to keep to the teaching 
of the Word than in dealing with these cardinal 
idea*. For him the resurrection is not the repro- 
duction of any particular organism, but the pre- 
servation of complete identity of person, an 
identity maintained under new conditions, which 
he presents under the apostolic figure of the 
growth of the plant from the seed : the seed is 
committed to the earth, perishes, and yet the 
vital power which it contains gathers a new 
frame answering to its proper nature. Judgment 
is no limited and local act, but the unimpeded 
execution of the absolute divine law by which 
the man is made to feel what he is and what he 
has become, and to bear the inexorable conse- 
quences of the revelation. Punishment is no 
vengeance, but the just severity of a righteous 
King, by which the soul is placed at least on the 
way of purification. Blessedness is no sensuous 
joy or indolent repose, but the opening vision 
of the divine glory, the growing insight into 
the mysteries of the fulfilment of the divine 

In the third book Origen discusses the moral 
basis of his system. This lies in the recognition 
of free-will as the inalienable endowment of 
rational beings. But this free-will does not 
carry with it the power of independent action, 
but only the power of receiving the help which 
is extended to each according to his capacity and 
needs, and therefore just responsibility for the 
consequences of action. Such free-will offers 
a sufficient explanation, in Origen's judgment, 
for what we see, and gives a stable foundation 
for what we hope. It places sin definitely within 
the man himself, and not without him. It pre- 
serves the possibility of restoration, while it en- 
forces the penalty of failure. " ' God said,' so he 
writes, ' let us make man in our image after our 
likeness.' Then the sacred writer adds, 'and 
God made man : in the image of God made He 
him.' This therefore that he says, ' in the image 
of God made He him,' while be is silent as to 
the likeness, has no other meaning than this, 
that man received the dignity of the image at 
his first creation : while the perfection of the 
likeness is kept in the consummation (of all 
things) ; tnat is, that he should himself gain it 
by the efforts of his own endeavour, since the 



possibility of perfection had been given him at 
the first..." (Hi. 6, 1). 

Such a doctrine, he shews, gives a deep solem- 
nity to the moral conflicts of life. We cannot, 
even to the last, plead that we are the victims 
of circumstances or of evil spirits. The decision 
in each case, this way or that, rests with our- 
selves, yet so that all we have and are truly is 
the gift of God. Each soul obtains from the 
object of its love the power to fulfil His will. 
" It draws and takes to itself," he says in another 
place, "the Word of God in proportion to its 
capacity and faith. And when souls have drawn 
to themselves the Word of God, and have let 
Him penetrate their senses and their under- 
standings, and have perceived the sweetness of 
His fragrance . . . filled with vigour and cheer- 
fulness they speed after him ..."(in Cant. i.). 
Such a doctrine, so far from tending to Pcla- 
gianism, is the very refutation of it. It lays 
down that the essence of freedom is absolute 
self-surrender: that the power of right action 
is nothing but the power of God. Every act of 
man is the act of a free being, but not an exer- 
cise of freedom: if done without dependence 
upon God, it is done in despite of freedom, re- 
sponsibly indeed, but under adverse constraint. 

The decision from moment to moment, Origen 
maintains, rests with us, but not the end. That 
is determined from the first, though the conduct 
of creatures can delay, through untold ages, the 
consummation of all things. The gift of being, 
once given, abides for ever. The rational creature 
is capable of change, of better and worse, but it 
can never cease to be. What mysteries however 
lie behind ; what is the nature of the spiritual 
body in which we shall be clothed ; whether all 
that is finite shall be gathered up in some un- 
speakable way into the absolute, — that Origen 
holds is beyond our minds to conceive. 

As the third book deals with the moral basis 
of Origen's system, so the fourth and last deals 
with its dogmatic basis. This order of succes- 
sion in the treatise is unusual, and yet it is in- 
telligible. It moves from the universal to the 
special ; from that which is most abstract to 
that which is most concrete ; from the heights 
of speculation to the rule of authority. "In 
investigating such great subjects as these," 
Origen writes, " we are not content with com- 
mon ideas and the clear evidence of what we see, 
but we take testimonies to prove what we state, 
even those which are drawn from the Scriptures 
which we believe to be divine " (iv. 1). There- 
fore, in conclusion, he examines with a reverence, 
an insight, a humility, a grandeur of feeling 
never surpassed, the questions of the inspiration 
and the interpretation of the Bible. The intel- 
lectual value of the work may best be charac- 
terised by one fact. A single sentence taken 
from it was quoted by Butler as containing the 
germ of his Analogy. 

Delarae, 1. 31-41. 
Lommatzsch, xvii. 65-J8. 

Before he left Alexandria Origen wrote ten 
books of miscellanies (SrpafiaTtis : comp. Euseb. 
//. E. vi. 18).* In these he appears to have dis- 

• In H. C. the title "Stromatum," without any farther 
definition, is given after the Books on Leviticus and 
before those on Isaiah. 

Digitized by 




cussed various topics in the light of ancient 
philosophy and Scripture (Hier. Ep. ad ilagn. 
Six. 4). The three fragments which remain, in 
a Latin translation, give no sufficient idea of 
their contents. The first, from the sixth book, 
touches on the permissibility of deflection from 
literal truth, following out a remark of Plato 
(Hier. adv. Suf. i. § 18 : comp. Horn. xix. t» Jer. 
§ 7 ; Horn, in Lev. iii. § 4). The second, from 
the tenth book, contains brief notes on the history 
of Susanna and Bel (Dan. xiii. xiv.) added by 
Jerome to his commentary on Daniel. The third, 
from the same book, gives an interpretation of 
Gal. v. 13, which is referred to the spiritual 
understanding of the narratives of Scripture 
(Hier. ad toe. Compare also Hier. in Jertm. iv. 
xxii. 24 ff.) 

Letter to Julius Africanus on the bo- 
toby of Susanna (Dan. xiii.). 

This letter was written from Nicomedia (§ 15), 
and probably on the occasion of Origen's second 
visit to Greece (c 240). It contains a reply to 
the objections which Julius Africanus urged 
against the authenticity of the history of 
Susanna, and offers a crucial and startling proof 
of Origen's deficiency in historical criticism. Afri- 
canus pointed out, among other things, that the 
writing must have been Greek originally, from 
the plays upon words which it contains, and 
that it was not contained in the " Hebrew " 
Daniel. To these arguments Origen answers 
that he had indeed been unable (<)iXq yap i) 
MiBtui) to find Hebrew equivalents to the 
paronomasias quoted, but that they may exist ; 
and that the Jews had probably omitted the 
history to save the honour of their elders. In 
thus vindicating the authority of the narrative, 
on the evidence of the current Greek Bible, he 
recognises the difference between " the Scriptures 
of the Jews " and " the Scriptures of the church," 
which became fruitful in confusion afterwards. 
He is unwilling to sacrifice anything which he 
has found held to be sacred. Providence, he 
held, must have provided for the edification of 
the church. It is well, too, to remember the 
words which bid us " not to remove the eternal 
landmarks {aidyw. fpui) which those set who 
were before us " (§§4 ff). If it is natural to 
admire the reverence of the scholar, made doubly 
sensitive perhaps by the controversies which he 
had unwillingly raised, it must be allowed that 
right lies with the aged Africanus, who could 
address Origen as " a son," and whose judgment 
was in the spirit of his own noble saying : — " May 
such a principle never prevail in the church of 
Christ that falsehood is framed for His praise 
and glory " (Fragm. ap. Routh, £. S. ii. 230> 

C. The eight books against Celsius. 

Maine, i. 310-799. 

The following MSS. of the Booh against Celsus 
are known more or less imperfectly : 

1. Cod. August. (Munich, Cod. Grace, lxiv.) saec. 

xvl. followed in the main by D. Hoeschel in the 
Editio princept. (See Reiser, Catol. p. 38.) 

2. Cod. Palatlnns, used also by Hoeschel.' 

t Hoeschel says on his title page that he edited the Book 
"ex btbUothecIs Elect. Palat. Boica et Aug." In his 
notes he refers several times to "Codex Palatums." I 
am not aware that this MS. has been Identified. 


3. Cod. Vatic. (Borne) Montfancon, BlbL MSS. L 

12 E. [Used by Persona for the Latin trans- 
lation i) 

4. Cod. Ottobon. (Rome) Montfancon, I. e. i. 186 a. 

5. Cod. Ambros. (Milan) 'c. Cctsunt volnmlna 

trta.' Montfancon, 2. c. 1. 502 d. 
ft. Cod. Bodl. MisceU. 21 (Oxford). Saec. xv. 
t. , 36, 1 (Oxford). Saec. xvL 

Baa. t. and part of II. 

8. Cod. Coll. Novi (Oxford). Saec xvi. A gift of 

Card. Pole to the college. 

9. Cod. S. Marci, 44 (Venice). Saec. xiv. 
10. , 45 (Venice). Saec. xiv. 

11. , 46 (Venice). Saec. xv. 

12. Cod. Leldensis (Leyden). Fabriclus, vli. p. 220. 

Delarue says that his text was collated with 
eight MSS.: — "Regie*, Basiliensi, Jobiano, qui 
nunc est ecclesiae cathedralis Parisiensis, duobua 
Vaticanis [recenti et vetere, ii. 11] et tribtu 
Anglicanis (L p. 315), but he gives no further 
details. They probably included 3, 4, 6, 7, 8. 

The MSS. agree not unfrequently in readings 
which are obviously corrupt, and differ from 
the text in the Philocalia ; but as yet they have 
not been so examined as to determine their 
mutual relations. Elie Bouhereau in his French 
translation of the work (Amsterdam, 1700) 
shewed great skill, with too much boldness, in 
dealing with the text ; and Mosheim in the Pre- 
face to his valuable German translation (Ham- 
burg, 1745) says justly : " Bouhereau, der nichts 
mehr als seinen Witz hat brauchen kfinnen, hat 
weit mehr kranke Stellen des Origenes geschickt 
geheilet als Carl de la Rue mit alien seinen acht 
alten Abschriften " (Pref. p. 8). 

An edition of Books i.-iv. was published by 
Prof. W. Selwyn (Cambridge, 1872-4) with 
short critical notes and some emendations. The 
best English translation is that by Dr. Crombie, 
in Clark's Ante-Nicene Chrittian Library, Edin- 
burgh, 1869, 1872. The French translation by 
Bouhereau, and the German translation by 
Mosheim (see above) are of considerable value. 

The earlier apologists had been called upoD 
to defend Christianity against the outbursts of 
popular prejudice, as a system compatible with 
civil and social order. Origen, in his Book* 
against Celsus, entered upon a far wider field. 
It was his object to defend the faith against a 
comprehensive attack, conducted by critical, his- 
torical, and philosophical, as well as by political, 
arguments. He undertook the work very un- 
willingly, at the urgent request of his friend 
Ambrosius, but when he had once undertaken it, 
he threw into the labour the whole energy of 
his genius. Celsus was an opponent worthy of 
his antagonism [Celsus] ; and Origen has at 
least done justice to his adversary, by allowing 
him to state his case in his own words, and fol- 
lowing him step by step in the great controversy. 
At first Origen proposed to deal with the attack 
of Celsus in a general form ; but after i. 27 he 
quotes the objections of Celsus, in the order of 
their occurrence, and deals with them one by 
one, so that it is possible to reconstruct the work 
of Celsus, in great part, from Origen's quota- 
tions. It would be difficult to overrate the im- 
portance both of the attack and of the defence 
in relation to the history of religions opinion in 
the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The form of objec- 
tions changes; but it may be said fairly that 
every essential type of objection to Christianity 
finds its representative in Celsus' statements, 

Digitized by VjOOQlC 


and Origen suggests in reply thoughts, often 
disguised in strange dresses, which may yet be 

Mo outline can convey a true idea of the ful- 
ness and variety of the contents of the treatise. 
It may however indicate the range of the dis- 
cussion. Speaking broadly the whole work falls 
into three parts, — the controversy on the history 
of Christianity (books i. ii.), the controversy on 
the general character and idea of Christianity 
(books iii.-v.), the controversy on the relations 
of Christianity to philosophy, to popular religion, 
and to national life (books vi.-viii.). There are 
necessarily many repetitions, bnt in the main this 
view appears to represent the course of the argu- 
ment. The lines of the discussion were laid down 
by Celsus: Origen simply followed him. 

After some introductory chapters (i. 1-27), 
which deal with a large number of miscellaneous 
objections to Christianity as illegal, secret, of 
barbarous origin, inspired by a demoniac power, 
an offshoot of Judaism, Origen meets Celsus' first 
serious attack, which is directed against the 
Christian interpretation of the gospel history. 
In this case Celsus places his arguments in the 
mouth of a Jew. The character, as Origen points 
out, is not consistently maintained, but the 
original conception is ingenious. A Jew might 
reasonably be supposed to be the best critic of a 
system which sprang out of his own people. The 
chief aim of the objector is to shew that the 
miraculous narratives of the gospels are untrust- 
worthy, inconclusive in themselves, and that 
the details of the Lord's life, so far as they can 
be ascertained, furnish no adequate support to 
the Christian theory of His person. The criti- 
cism is wholly external and unsympathetic. 
Can we suppose, Celsus asks, that He who was 
God would be afraid and flee to Egypt (i. 66) ? 
that He could have had a body like other men 
(i. 69 ; ii. 36)? that He would have lived a sordid 
wandering life, with a few mean followers (i. 62)? 
that He would hare borne insults without exact- 
ing vengeance (ii. 35) ? that He would have been 
met with incredulity (ii. 75)? that He would 
have died upon the cross (ii. 68) ? that He would 
have shewn Himself only to friends if He rose 
again (ii. 63) ? For the rest he repeats the Jewish 
story of the shameful birth of Christ, and of His 
education in Egypt, where Celsus supposes that 
He learned the magical arts by which He was 
enabled to impose upon His countrymen. These 
illustrations sufficiently shew the fatal weakness 
of Celsus' position. He has no eye for the facts 
of the inner life. He makes no effort to appre- 
hend the gospel offered in what Christ did and was, 
as a revelation of spiritual power ; and Origen 
rises immeasurably superior to him in his vin- 
dication of the majesty of Christ's humiliation 
and sufferings (i. 29 ff.). He shews that Christ 
did "dawn as a sun" upon the world (ii 30), 
when judged by a moral and not by an external 
standard (ii. 40): that He left to His disciples 
tbe abiding power of doing "greater works" 
than He Himself did in His earthly life (ii. 48) ; 
that the actual energy of Christianity in regen- 
erating men,c was a proof that He who was its 
spring was more than man (ii. 79). 

s Seen, (or example, m one like St Paul, of whom 
took no notto (U 63). 



In the third and following books Celsus appears 
in his own person. He first attaoks Christianity 
as being, like Judaism, originally a revolution ary 
system, based upon an idle faith in legends no 
more worthy of credence than those of Greece 
(iii. 1-43) ; and then he paints it in detail as a 
religion of threats and promises, appealing only 
to the ignorant and the sinful, unworthy of wise 
men, and, in fact, not addressed to them, or even 
excluding them (iii. 44-81). Here again Origen 
has an easy victory. He has no difficulty in 
shewing that no real parallel can be established 
between the Greek heroes (iii. 22), or, as Celsus 
had ventured to suggest, Antinous (iii. 36 ff.) 
and Christ. On the other side he can reply with 
the power of a life-long experience, that while the 
message of the gospel is universal and divine in 
its universality, " education is a way to virtue," 
a help towards the knowledge of God (iii. 45, 
49, 58, 74), contributory, but not essentially 
supreme. But he rightly insists on placing the 
issue as to its claims in the moral and not in the 
intellectual realm. Christians are the proof of 
their creed. They are visibly transformed in 
character : the ignorant are proved wise, sinners 
are made holy (iii. 51, 64, 78 ff.). 

The fourth and fifth books are in many respects 
the most interesting of all. In these Origen meets 
Celsus' attack upon that which is the central 
idea of Christianity, and indeed of Biblical reve- 
lation, the Coming of God. This necessarily 
includes the discussion of the Biblical view of 
man's relation to God and nature. The conten- 
tions of Celsus are that there can be no sufficient 
cause and no adequate end for " a coming of God " 
(iv. 1-28) : that the account of God's dealings 
with men in the Old Testament is obviously in- 
credible (iv. 29-50) : that nature is fixed, even 
as to the amount of evil (iv. 62), and that man 
is presumptuous in claiming a superiority over 
what he calls irrational animals (iv. 54-99). In 
especial he dwells on the irrationality of the 
belief of a coming of God to judgment (v. 1-24) ; 
and maintains that there is a divine order in the 
distribution of the world among different nations, 
in which the Jews have no prerogative (v. 25-50). 
On all grounds therefore, he concludes, the claims 
of Christianity to be a universal religion, based 
on the coming of God to earth, are absurd. In 
treating these arguments Origen had a more 
arduous work to achieve than he had hitherto- 
accomplished. The time had not then come- 
probably it has not come yet — when such far- 
reaching objections could be completely met. 
And Origen was greatly embarrassed by his want 
of that historic sense which is essential to the 
apprehension of the order of the divine revela- 
tions. His treatment of the Old Testament nar- 
ratives is unsatisfactory; and it is remarkable 
that he does not apply his own views on the 
unity of the whole plan of being, as grasped by 
man, in partial explanation at least of the present 
mysteries of life. They underlie indeed all that 
he says ; and much that he urges in detail is ot 
great weight, as his remarks upon the conception 
of a divine coming (iv. 5 n% 13 f.), on the rational 
dignity of man (iv. 13, 23 ff., 30), on the anthro- 
popathic language of Scripture (iv. 71 ff.), on 
the resurrection (v. 16 ff.). 

In the last three books Origen enters again 
upon surer ground. He examines Celsus' par- 
allels to the teaching of Scripture on the know- 

Digitized by 




ledge of God and the kingdom of heaven, drawn 
from Gentile sources (vi. 1-23); and after a 
digression on a mystical diagnosis of some here- 
tical sect, which Celsuj had brought forward as a 
specimen of Christian teaching (vi. 24-40), he 
passes to the true teaching on Satan and the Son 
of God and creation (ri. 41-65), and unfolds more 
in detail the doctrine of a spiritual revelation 
through Christ (vi. 66-81). This leads to a vindi- 
cation of the Old Testament prophecies of Christ 
(vii. 1-17), of the compatibility of the two dispen- 
sations (vii. 18-26), and of the Christian idea of 
the future life (vii. 27-40). Celsus proposed to 
point Christians to some better way, but Origen 
shews that he has failed : the purity of Christians 
puts to shame the lives of other men (vii. 41-61). 
The remainder of the treatise is occupied with 
arguments bearing upon the relations of Christi- 
anity to popular worship and civil duties. Celsus 
urged that the "demons," the gods of polytheism, 
might justly claim some worship, as having been 
entrusted with certain offices in the world (rii. 
•62-viii. 32) ; that the circumstances of life de- 
mand reasonable conformity to the established 
worship, which includes what is true in the 
Christian faith (viii. 33-68); that civil obedience 
is paramount (viii. 69-75). Origen replies in 
detail ; and specially he shews that the worship 
of one God is the essence of true worship (viii. 
12 f.); that Christianity has a consistent cer- 
tainty of belief, with which no strange opinions 
can be put into comparison (viii. 53 ff.); that 
Christians do, in the noblest sense, support the 
civil powers by their lives, by their prayers, by 
their organization (viii. 75). 

The spirit of the arguments on both sides is, 
it will be seen, essentially modern : in the mode 
of treatment there is much that is characteristic 
of the age in which the writers lived. Two 
points of very different nature will especially 
strike the student. The first is the peculiar 
stress which Origen, in common with other early 
writers, and not with them only, lays upon iso- 
lated passages of the prophets and of the Old 
Testament generally : the second, the unques- 
tioning belief which he, in common with Celsus, 
Accords to the claims of magic and augury (i. 6, 
•67 ; iv. 92 f. ; vii. 67 ; viii. 58). But when every 
deduction has been made, it would not be easy to 
{>oint to a discussion of the claims of Christianity 
more comprehensive or more rich in pregnant 
thought. Among early apologies it has no rival. 
The constant presence of a real antagonist gives 
unflagging vigour to the debate ; and the con- 
scious power of Origen lies in the appeal which 
he could make to the Christian life as the one 
unanswerable proof of the Christian faith (com p. 
Proof. 2 ; i. 27, 67 «./.). 

In addition to the passages of the treatise 
which have been already noticed, there are many 
others of great interest, which are worthy of 
study apart from the context. Such are Origen's 
remarks on the spirit of controversy (vii. 46) ; 
on the moral power of Christianity, its univer- 
sality, and its fitness for man (ii. 64 ; iii. 28, 40, 
54, 62 ; iv. 26 ; vii. 17, 35, 42, 59) ; on fore- 
knowledge (ii. 19 ff.) ; on the anthropomorphism 
of Scripture (vi. 60 ff.); on the beauty of the 
ideal hope of the Christian (iii. 81) ; on the ideal 
of worship (viii. 17 f. ; vii. 44) ; on the divisions 
of Christians (iii. 12 f. ; v. 61); on spiritual 
fellowship (viii. 64) ; on future unity (viii. 72). 


Compare, in addition to the general writers on 
Origen — 

Aube, B.. La poiimique paienne a la Jin du 

lime Stfcfc, Paris, 1878. 
Keim. Th., Cdtut' wahru Wort . . . Zurich. 1873. 
Pelagaud, E.. EtiuU tur Cdst . . . Paris. 1878. 
Lagrange (F.), Abbe, La Ilaivm ct la Foi ... 

Paris, 1856. 
Kind (A.), TtLedogit u. Jfaturalinuu . . . Jena. 


D. Practical Works. 
On Prater. 

Delarue, 1. 195-273. 
Lommatxsch, xvll. 79 ff. 

Origen's essay on prayer was addressed to 
Ambrosius and Tatiana (AiAo/taOloraroi xal 
yrriai&Tarot 4» S*oat$tta aS*\<poi, c. 33), in 
answer to inquiries which they proposed to him 
as to the efficacy, the manner, the subject, the 
circumstances of prayer. No writing of Origen 
is more free from his characteristic faults, or 
more full of beautiful thoughts. He examines 
first the meaning and use of eVxh (§ 3), and the 
objections urged against the efficacy of prayer, 
that God foreknows the future, and that all 
things take place according to His will (§ 5). 
Divine foreknowledge does not, he points oat, 
take away man's responsibility : the moral atti- 
tude of prayer is in itself a sufficient blessing 
upon it (§§ 6 ff.). Prayer establishes an active 
communion between Christ and the angels in 
heaven (§§ 10 f.) ; and the duty of prayer is 
enforced by the example of Christ and the saints 
(§§ 13 f.). Prayer must be addressed to God 
only, " our Father in heaven," and not to Christ 
the Son as apart from the Father, but to the 
Father through Him (§ 15). The proper objects 
of prayer are things heavenly, to which " the 
shadow " — things earthly — may follow or not 
(§§ 16 f.). These general reflections are illus- 
trated by a detailed exposition of the Lord's 
Prayer, as given by St. Matthew, with reference 
also to the corresponding prayer in St. Lnke 
(§§ 18-30). The last chapters (§§ 31-33) give 
interesting details as to the appropriate disposi- 
tion, the attitude, the place, the direction (xAfpa), 
the topics of prayer. He who prays will by 
preference, Origen says, pray standing, with 
eyes and hands uplifted, and turned to the East. 

The observations on the habit of prayer (§ 8), 
on the sympathy of the dead with the living 
(§ 11), on life as " one great unbroken prayer ** 
(§ 12, pla trvvairTopivTi peydAq «&x4)> on the 
preparation for prayer (§ 31), ore of singular 
beauty. Elsewhere Origen dwells on the power 
of the prayers of the church (in Bom. x. § 15), 
even for heathen benefactors (Comm. Ser. in Matt. 
§ 120). 

The essay is found complete in one MS. only, 
Cod. Holmientis of Trin. Coll. Cambridge. Delarue 
found the last chapters (31-end) in a Colbertine 
MS., and had the advantage of a collation of the 
Trinity MS. by the skilful hand of J. Walker, 
with Bentley's conjectural emendations. 

The Exhortation to Martyrdom (els pap- 
riptor Trporptwriicbs h&yoiy. 

Delarue, 1. 273-310. 
Lommatzscb, xx. 227 ff. 

In the persecution of Maximinui (235-237), 
Ambrosius andThcoctetus,apresbyter of Caesarea, 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


-were thrown into prison. Origen addressed them 
in a book written from his heart : as a boy and 
is an old man he looked face to face on martyr- 
dom. Their sufferings, he tells them, are a proof 
of their maturity (e. 1), and in some sense the 
price of future blessedness (2), for which man's 
earthly frame is unfitted (3 ff.). The denial of 
Christ, on the other hand, is the most grievous 
wrong to God (6 ff.). Believers are indeed pledged 
to endurance, which will be repaid with un- 
speakable joys (12 ff.). Moreover they are en- 
couraged in their trials by the thought of the 
unseen spiritual witnesses by whom they are 
surrounded in the season of their outward suffer- 
ings (18 ff.), and by the examples of those who 
hare already triumphed (22 ff.). By martyrdom 
man can shew his gratitude to God (28 f.), and 
at the same time receive afresh the forgiveness 
of baptism, offering, as a true priest, the sacrifice 
of himself (30 ; conip. Horn, vii. in Jvd. 2). So 
he conquers demons (32). And the predictions 
of the Lord shew that he is not forgotten (34 ff.), 
but rather that some counsel of love is fulfilled 
for him through affliction (39 ff.), such as we 
can represent to ourselves by the union of the 
soul with God when it is freed from the distrac- 
tions of life (47 ff.). Perhaps, too, it may be 
that the blood of martyrs may have some virtue 
to gain others, for the truth (50, rix a r V T '^V 
tuuort t«c /laprvpw kyopa&fiffovrai rtvts i comp. 
Horn, in Num. x. 2 ; c. Cels. viii. 44). 

E. Critical Writings [Hexapla]. 

F. Letters. 

(Eleven " books " of Letters in all, two books 
of letters in defence of his works. — II. C.) 

Delaine, i. 3-32. 
tommitMrh, xvtl. 1 ft*. 

Eusebius relates that he had made a collection 
of Origen'a letters, containing more than a hun- 
dred (J5T. E. vi. 36, 2). Of these two only re- 
main entire, those to Julius Africanus and Gre- 
gory, and of the remainder the fragments and 
notices are most meagre. The famous sentence 
from his letter to his father has been already 
quoted (p. 98). In another fragment (Dela- 
rue, i. p. 3, from Suidas, s. v. 'fiprytVqs) he 
gives a lively picture of the incessant labour 
which the zeal of Ambrosins imposed upon him. 
A third fragment of great interest, preserved by 
Eusebius, contains a defence of his study of heathen 
philosophy (Enseb. ff. E. vi. 19). Another im- 
portant passage of a letter addressed to friends 
at Alexandria, in which he complains of the mis- 
representations of those who professed to give 
account* of controversies which they had held 
with him, has been preserved in a Latin transla- 
tion by Jerome and Kufinus (Delsrue, i. p. 5). 
Of the many letters which he wrote in defence 
of his orthodoxy, including one to Fabianus, 
bishop of Rome (Enseb. ff. E. vi. 36 ; comp. Hier. 
Ep. 41 (65) \ nothing remains. In like manner 
his letters to Beryllns (Hier. de Tir. HI. 60), to 
his scholar Trypho (to*. 57), to the emperor Philip 
and his wife (or mother) (Euseb. ff. E. vi. 36 ; 
Bier. de Vir. 111. 54), have also perished. 

To Oregon/ of Neo-Caesarea. 

Gregory was as yet undecided as to his pro- 
fession when this letter was written (c. 236-7 ; 
comp. pp. 101 f.). Origen expresses his ear- 
nest desire that his "son" will devote all his 
knowledge of general literature and the fruits 



of wide discipline to Christianity (c. 1). He 
illustrates this use of secular learning by the 
" spoiling of the Egyptians " (c. 2) ; and con- 
cludes his appeal by a striking exhortation to> 
Gregory to study Scripture (irpoVex* rp rclr 
Btlay ypaQav drayrt&afC iwa wooVexc): "He 
that said knock . . . and seek . . . said also, Ask 
and it shall be given " (c. 3). Comp. Draseke, 
Her Brief d. Orig. an Cfregorios . . . Jahrb. f. Fro- 
test. Theol. 1881 1. 

The letter to Julius Africanus has been already 
noticed (p. 122). 

G. The Pmlocalia. 

Some notice must be given of this admirable 
collection of extracts from Origen'a writings, to 
which the preservation of many fragments of 
the Greek text is due. It was made, as it ap- 
pears, by Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil ; and 
the former sent it to Theodosius bishop of 
Tyana, about a.d. 382, with a letter (Greg. Naz. 
Ep. cxv.) in which he says: "That you may 
have some memorial from us, and at the same 
time from the holy Basil, we have sent you a 
small volume of the 'Choice thoughts' of 
Origen (vvktIov tjjj 'Clpiyivows +iAo/raA(ai), con- 
taining extracts of passages serviceable for 
scholars (rots <pi\o\iyou). Be pleased to accept 
it, and to give us some proof of its usefulness with 
the aid of industry and the Spirit." 

The Philocalia is of great interest, not only 
from the intrinsic excellence of the passages 
which it contains, but as shewing what Catholic 
saints held to be characteristic thoughts in 
Ori gen's teaching. 

The book consists of xxvii. chapters, which 
treat of the following subjects : 

1. On the Inspiration of divine Scripture- 
How Scripture should be read and understood. 
What is the reason (\6yos) of its obscurity, and 
of that in it which is impossible or irrational 
according to the letter (Kara t6 far6v). — Long 
extracts from the fourth book on First Prin- 
ciples, § 1-23 ; an extract from the Com- 
mentary on Psalm 1. (li.) ; an extract from the 
Second Homily on Leviticus. 

2. That divine Scripture is slosed (KeKkturrai) 
and sealed. — Extracts from the Book on Ps. i. 

3. Why the Inspired Books [of the Old Test.] 
are twenty-two. — Extract from the same Book 
on Ps. i. 

4. Of the solecism and poor style of Scripture. 
— Extracts from the Fourth Book on St. John. 

5. What is much-speaking, and what are 
" many books ; " and that inspired Scripture is 
one Book. — Extracts from the Fifth Book on, 
St. John. 

6. That divine Scripture is one instrument of 
God, perfect and fitted (for its work). — Extract 
from the Second Book on St. Matthew. 

7. On the special character (rov Ittiuatos) of 
the persons of divine Scripture. — Extracts from 
(1) the early Book on Canticles, (2) the Fourth 
Homily on the Acts. 

8. On the duty of not endeavouring to correct 
the inaccurate (aohoiKoettrj) phrases of Scripture 
and those which are not capable of being under- 
stood according to the letter, seeing that they 
contain deep propriety of thought (ro\v to rqr 
Stavoias lueiXovSov) for those who can under- 
stand. — Extract from the Commentary on Ilosea. 

9. What is the reason that divine Scripture 
often uses the same term in different significa- 

Digitized by 




tions, and (that) in the same place. — Extract 
from the Ninth Book on the Romans. 

10. On passages in divine Scripture which 
seem to involve some stone of stumbling or rock 
of offence. — Extract from the Thirty-ninth 
Homily on Jeremiah. 

11. That we must seek the nourishment sup- 
plied by all inspired Scripture, and not turn 
from the passages (^irref) troubled by heretics 
with ill-advised difficulties (Sv<r<pijiu>ts Iwaxo- 
pilfftaiy), nor slight them, but make use of them 
also, being kept from the confusion which 
attaches to unbelief. — Extracts from the Twen- 
tieth Book on Ezekiel. 

12. That he should not faint in the reading 
of divine Scripture who does not understand the 
<lark riddles and parables it contains. — Extract 
from the Twentieth Homily on Joshua. 

13. When and to whom the lessons of philo- 
sophy are serviceable to the explanation of the 
sacred Scriptures, with Scripture testimony. — 
Letter to Gregory. 

14. That it is most necessary for those who 
wish not to fail of the truth in understanding 
the divine Scriptures to know the logical prin- 
ciples or preparatory discipline (uaHjpara tjroi 
■Kfortult<i)uxT*) which apply to their use, with- 
out which they cannot set forth the exact mean- 
ing of the thoughts expressed as they should 
do. — Extract from the Third Book on Genesis. 

15. A reply to the Greek philosophers who 
disparage the poverty of the style of the divine 
Scriptures, and maintain that the noble truths 
in Christianity have been better expressed among 
the Greeks ; and who further say that the Lord a 
person was ill-favoured ; with the reason of the 
different forms of the Word. — Extracts from the 
Sixth and Seventh Books against Ceisus,'' c. Cels. 
vi. 1-5 (with a fragm. from i. 2) ; vii. 58-61 ; 
vi. 75-77 (with fragments from i.42, 68 ; ii. 15; 
and one of uncertain source, p. 89 L.). 

16. Of those who malign Christianity on ac- 
count of the heresies is the Church. — Extract 
from the Third Book against Ceisus (c. Cels. iii. 
12-14, with fragments from v. 61, 63). 

17. A reply to those philosophers who aay 
that it makes no difference if we call Him who 
is God over all by the name Zeus, current among 
the Greeks, or by that which is used by Indians or 
Egyptians. — Extracts from the Third and Fifth 
Books against Ceisus (c. Cels. i. 21-25 ; v. 45, 46 ; 
iv. 48 fragm.). 

18. A reply to the Greek philosophers who 
profess universal knowledge, and blame the 
simple faith (to irt^iraaror tjjj xlareas) of 
the mass of Christians, and charge them with 
preferring folly to wisdom in life ; and who 
say that no wise or educated man has become a 
disciple of Jesus .... Extracts from the 
First and Third Books against Ceisus (c. Cels. i. 
9-11 i 19b, 20; 12, 13; 62b-66; iii. 44-54; 
73b, 74). 

19. That our faith in the Lord has nothing in 
common with the irrational, superstitious faith 
of the Gentiles .... And in reply to those 
who say, How do we think that Jesus is God 
when He had a mortal body ?— Extracts from the 

» It will be noticed that the description of the sources 
of the extracts given in the book Is not always exact or 


same (Third) Book against Ceisus (c Cels. ill 
38-i2 a). 

20. A reply to those who say that the whole 
world was made, not for man, but for irrational 
creatures . . . who live with less toil than men . . . 
and foreknow the future. Wherein is an argu- 
ment against transmigration and on augury . . . 
— Extract from the Fourth Book against Ceisus 
(c. Cels. iv. 73b-76a, 78-99). 

21. Of free-will, with an explanation of the 
sayings of Scripture which seem to deny it. — 
Extract from the Third Book of First Principle*. 

22. What is the dispersion of the rational or 
human souls indicated under a veil in the build- 
ing of the Tower, and the confusion of tongues . . . 
— Extract from the Fifth Book against Ceisus 
(c Cels. v. 25-28a, 35, 28b-32). 

23. On Fate, and the reconciliation of divine 
foreknowledge with human freedom; and how 
the stars do not determine the affairs of men, 
but only indicate them . . . Extracts from (i.) the 
Third Book on Genesis, (ii.) the Second Book 
against Ceisus (c. Cels. ii. 20b). 

24. Of matter, that it is not uncreated (jkyinni- 
toi) or the cause of evil. — From the Seventh Book 
of the Evangelical Preparation of Eusebius (Euseb. 
Praep. Evang. vii. 22).' 

25. That the separation to a special work 
(Rom. i. 1) from foreknowledge does not destroy 
free-will. — Extract from the First Book on the 

26. Of the question as to things good and 
evil . . . Extract from the Book on Ps. iv. 

27. On the phrase : " He hardened Pharaoh's 
heart." — Extracts from unnamed books ; and from 
notes on Exodus, and from the Second Book on 

The MSS. of the Philocalia are numerous. One 
at Venice (No. 47) is referred to the 1 1th century. 
A MS. at New College Oxford is of interest as 
having been presented to the Society by Cardinal 

It does not fall within the scope of this article 
to notice in detail the works which have been 
falsely attributed to Origen. Of these the most 
important are : 

The Dialogue against the Marcionites (AidXoyos 
Kara VLapKiuviffr&r tj v*p\ rrjs tls 9tbv op&Sjr 

Delarue, i. 800 ff. 
Iiommatzsch, xvl. 2*6 ff.l 

< The passage is quoted by Eusebius from " Maxi- 
ma*, a distinguished man." A large part of It Is found 
In the "Dialogue of Adamantine," falsely attributed to 
Origen (Delarue, 1, 843 if. ; Lommatsscb, xvl. 341 ff.). 
Corap. Konth, Hell. Sacrat, ii. 11 ff. 

It is by no means unlikely that this section was added 
to the text afterwards. The concluding note ears that the 
passage is also found iv ry 'Qptyfoovt vpbc MapKUMterav, 
i.e., the Dialogue of Adamantine, which they could hardly 
have attributed to him. 

* See also J ix. note, p. 140. 

> There is a MS. of the Dialogue in the Gale collection 
(O. 4.41) with the following note : " Collates est hie Codex 
cum cod. ms. qui servatur in Bibl. Trtu.GolL Camb. Krat 
autem Is descriptus ex cod. ms°. Regfae BlbL Gall. H. 
collatns cum alio ejusdem Blbliothecae libro ms"." At 
the end is the colophon : " Scrlpslt Petrns Goldmannus 
Scotus In blbliotheca Bodlelana anno redemptae salutis 
1(513." A loose sheet of conjectural emendations is 
Included In the same volume. 

Digitized by 



PhSosophumena, a fragment of » treatise 
"against all heresies." 

Delaine, t. 812 ff. 
Lommauach, xxt. W» ff. 

Commentaries on Job (three books), written 
after 311. 

Delarae, 1L 850 B. 
Lommattsch, xvL 1 ft*. 

Phihoopfntmena, published under the name of 
Origen from a Paris MS. by E. Miller, Oxford, 
1851, bat now generally attributed to Hippo- 

It is probable that the Lexicon of Hebrew 
names, published under the name of Origen by 
Martianay (Hieron. iii. pp. 1203 ff., ed. Migne), 
has at least an Origenian foundation, and the 
interpretations deserve comparison with those 
scattered through Origen's Greek works. Comp. 
Fabricius, Bill. Oraeca, vii. 226 f. a 

V. View of Chkistias Lbpe. 

The picture of Christian life which is drawn 
in Origen's writings, is less complete and vivid 
than might have been expected. It represents 
a society already sufficiently large, powerful, 
and wealthy, to offer examples of popular vices. 
Origen contrasts the Christians of his own day 
with those of an earlier time, and pronounces 
them unworthy to bear the name of " faithful " 
(Ham. «n Jer. iv. 3; comp. m Matt. xvii. 24). 
Some who were Christians by birth were unduly 
proud of their descent (in Matt. xr. § 26). 
Others retained their devotion to pagan super- 
stitions — astrology, auguries, necromancy (in 
Josh. v. 6, rii. 4; comp. in Matt. xiii. § 6) 
and secular amusements {Bom. in Lev. ix. 9, 
xi. 1). There were many spiritual " Gibeonites " 
among them, men who gave liberal offerings to 
the churches but not their lives (in Josh. x. 
1, 3). The attendance at church services was 
infrequent (in Josh. i. 7 ; Horn, in Sen. x. 1, 3). 
The worshippers were inattentive (Horn, in Ex. 
xiii 2) and impatient (Horn, in Jud. vi. 1). 
Commercial dishonesty (in Matt. xv. 13) and 
hardness (Bel. in Job. p. 341 L.) had to be re- 

Such faults call out the preacher's denuncia- 
tions at all times. Origen deals with an evil 
more characteristic of his age when he dwells on 
the growing ambition of the clergy. High places 
in the hierarchy were now sought by favour and 
by gifts (Horn, in Num. xxii. 4 ; comp. in Matt. 
xvi. 22; Comm. Set. §§ 9, 10, 12). Prelates 
endeavoured to nominate their kinsmen as their 
successors (id. xxii. 4) ; and shrank from boldly 
rebuking vice lest they should lose the favour 

The MS. in the Library or Trinity College which is 
referred to Is marked B. S, 10. The colophon Is: "In 
gratlain praestantlselml et reverendlstrtiul vlri Isaacl 
VoasH I. V J>. descrlbebun Lntetlae PalMoram, Decembri 
1(41, ego Claudius Samnios." The MS. was given by 
Toss to H. Tborndlke. 

■ One apocryphal Homily On Mary Magdalene 
deserves to be noticed on account of lis wide popularity. 
Chancer says that : 

M He made also, gon is a grete while, 
Orlgenes upon the Maudelaine." 

Legend of Good Women, 437. 
But the La m entatio n of Marie Mag&t&eiete, which Is 
otteii printed among bis works. Is generally held to be 



of the people (in Josh. vii. 6), using the powers 
of discipline from passion rather than with judg- 
ment (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 14), so that their 
conduct already caused open scandal (Horn, in 
Num. ii. 17). They too often forgot humility at 
their ordination (Horn, in Esech. ix. 2). They 
despised the counsel of men of lower rank, " not 
to speak of that of a layman or a Gentile" 
(Horn, m Ex. xi. 6). 

Origen in particular denounces the pride 
of the leading men in the Christian society, 
which already exceeded that of Gentile tyrants, 
especially in the more important cities (in Matt. 
xvi. 8). 

It is natural that a public teacher should 
dwell on vices rather than on virtues, but 
Origen's language must not be forgotten when 
an estimate is made of the early church. 

Yet, according to Origen, traces still remained 
in his time of the miraculous endowments of the 
apostolic church, which he had himself seen (c. 
Cels. ii. 8, iii. 24; in Joh. torn. xx. 28, %xyn ko! 
kelwucra; comp. c. Ceis. i. 2). Exorcism was 
habitually practised (Horn, in Jos. xxiv. 1). 
Demons were expelled, many cures were wrought, 
future events were foreseen by Christians through 
the help of the Spirit (c. Cels. i. 46 ; comp. i. 25, 
iii. 36, viii. 58) ; and he says that the "name of 
Jesus " was sometimes powerful against demons, 
even when named by bad men (c. Cels. i. 6; 
comp. v. 45). 

But this testimony must be taken in conjunc- 
tion with the belief in the power of magic which 
he shared with his contemporaries. He appeals 
unhesitatingly to the efficacy of incantations 
made with the use of sacred names (c Cels. i. 22, 
iv. 33 ff.; comp. m Matt. Comm. Ser. § 110), 
and otherwise according to secret rules (c. Cels. 
i. 24 ; Horn, in Num. xiii. 4 ; in Jos. xx. fragm. 
ap. Philoc. c xii.) 

Origen says little of the relations of Christians 
to other bodies in the state. The interpenetra- 
tion of common life by paganism necessarily 
excluded believers from most public ceremonies, 
and from much social intercourse. The same 
influence made them ill-disposed towards art, 
which was for the most part devoted to the old 
religion (c. Cels. iii. 56 ; De Orat. 17), and had 
not as yet found any place in connexion with 
Christian worship (c. Cels. vii. 63 ff.). And it is 
remarkable that while Origen was pre-eminently 
distinguished for his vindication of the claims of 
reason (c. Cels. i. 13) and of Gentile philosophy, 
as being the ripest fruit of man's natural powers 
(comp. Horn, in Qen. xiv. 3 ; in Ex. xi. 6) and 
not their corruption (Tertullian), he still very 
rarely refers to the literature of secular wisdom 
in his general writings as ancillary to revelation. 
He even in some cases refers its origin to " the 
princes of this world " (De Princ. iii. 3, 2) ; and 
in an interesting outline of the course of Gentile 
education, he remarks that it may only accumu- 
late a wealth of sins (Horn. iii. in Ps. xxxvi. 6). 
On the other hand, his directions for dealing with 
unbelievers are marked by the truest courtesy 
(Horn, in Ex. iv. 9) ; and in spite of his own 
courageous enthusiasm, he counselled prudence 
in times of persecution (in Matt. x. 23). Oc 
casions for such self-restraint arose continually. 
For Origen notices the popular judgment, active 
from the time of Tertullian to that of Augustine, 
which referred " wars, famines, and pestilences " 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



to the spread of the faith (in Matt. Comm. Ser. 
§ 39). In especial he dwells upon the animosity 
of the Jews, who " would rather see a criminal . 
acquitted than convicted by the evidence of a 
Christian" (id. § 16). Of the extension of 
Christianity he speaks in general terms, rhe- 
torically rather than exactly. It was not 
preached among all the Ethiopians, especially 
" those beyond the river," or among the Chinese. 
"What," he continues, "shall we say of the 
Britons or Germans by the Ocean, Dacians, Sar- 
matians, Scythians, very many of whom have not 
yet heard the word?" (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 39). 
Vet elsewhere he reckons inhabitants of Britain 
and Mauritania among those who held the com- 
mon faith (Horn, m Luc. vi.). 

As a general rule Christians declined public 
offices, not from any lack of loyalty, but as 
feeling that they could serve their country 
better through their own society (c. Cels. viii. 
73, 75). 

The church, according to Origen, is the whole 
body of believers animated by Christ, who, as 
the Divine Logos, stirs each member, so that 
without Him it does nothing (c. Cels. vi. 48). 
In the widest sense it has existed even from the 
Creation (in Cant. ii. p. 418 L.). Such a view, 
which makes the church coextensive with the 
existence of divine fellowship, carries with it 
the corollary, that " without the church there is 
no salvation " (Horn, in Jos. iii. 6). Origen, as 
has been seen, shewed practically his respect for 
the see of Rome, but he recognised no absolute 
supremacy in St. Peter (in Matt. xii. 11). He 
held indeed that he had a certain pre-eminence 
(in Joh. torn, xxxii. 5), and that the church was 
founded on him (Bom. in Ex. v. 4), but every 
disciple of Christ, he affirms, holds in a true 
sense the same position (Comm. in Matt. xii. 10). 

In this connexion it may be noticed that 
Origen lays great stress upon the importance 
of right belief (in Matt. torn. xii. 23 ; Comm. Ser. 
in Matt. § 33 ; De Orat. 29). As a young man 
he refused every concession to a misbeliever in 
the house of his benefactress (Euseb. S. E. vi. 
2). In later years he laboured successfully to 
win back those who had fallen into error. But 
none the less his sense of the infinite greatness 
of the truth made him tolerant (c. Cels. v. 63). 
He ventured to say that varieties of belief were 
due to the vastness of its object (c. Cels. iii. 12); 
and his discussion of the question, Who is a 
heretic? is full of interest (Fragm. in Ep. ad 

Casual notices scattered through Origen's 
writings, give a fairly complete view of the 
religious observances of his time. He speaks 
generally of stated times of daily prayer, " not 
less than three " (De Orat. 12), of the days which 
they kept — " the Lord's days (com p. Horn, in Ex. 
vii. 5 ; in Num. xxiii. 4), Fridays, Easter, Pente- 
cost " (c. Cels. viii. 22 ; comp. Horn, in Is. vi. 
§ 2), — and of the Lenten, Wednesday, and Friday 
fasts (Horn, in Lev. x. 2). Some still added Jewish 
rites to the celebration of Easter (Horn, in Jer. 
xii. 13), and other traces remained of Judaizing 
practices (Horn, in Jer. x. § 2). Jewish converts, 
Origen says without reserve, " have not left 
their national law " (c. Cels. il. 1, comp. § 3) ; 
though he lays down that Christ forbade His 
disciples to be circumcised (c. Cels. i. 22 ; comp. 
v. 48). Christians however still abstained from 


" things strangled " (c. Cels. viii. 30), and from 
meat that had been offered to idols (id. 24). 
Outward forms had already made progress ; and 
there were those whose religion consisted in 
" bowing their head to priests, and in bringing 
offerings to adorn the altar of the church" 
(Horn, in Jos. x. 3). 

Baptism was administered to infants, "in 
accordance with apostolic tradition " (in Rom. 
v. § 9, p. 397 L. ; Horn, m Lev. viii. § 3 ; in Luc 
xiv.), in the name of the Holy Trinity (in Rom. 
v. § 8, p. 383 L. ; * comp. in Joh. torn. vi. 17), 
with the solemn renunciations " of the devil and of 
his pomps, works, and pleasures " (Horn, in Num. 
xii. 4)*. The unction (confirmation) does not 
appear to have been separated from it (in Rom. 
v. § 8, p. 381 : " omnes baptizati in aquis istis 
visibilibus et in chrismato visibili "). As for the 
gift of the Holy Spirit, which comes only from 
Christ, Origen held that it was given according 
to His righteous will : " Not all who are bathed 
in water are forthwith bathed in the Holy 
Spirit" (Horn, in Num. iii. 1). Compare also 
Sel. in Gen. ii. 15 ; Horn, in Luc. xxi. ; De /Vine 
i. 2 ; and for the two sacraments, Horn, in Num. 
vii. 2. Adult converts were divided into 
different classes and trained with great care 
(c. Cels. iii. 51). 

Of the Holy Communion Origen speaks not 
unfrequently. but with some reserve (Horn, in 
Lev. x. 10; in Jos. iv. 1). It is remarkable 
that he does not mention it when he discusses 
the various modes of remission of sin (Horn, in 
Lev. ii. 4). The passages which give his views 
most fully are in Joh. xxxii. § 16 ; in Matt. xi. 
§ 14 ; in Matt. Comm. Ser. §§ 85 f. ; Horn, in 
Qen. xvii. 8 ; in Ex. xiii. § 3 ; in Lev. ix. 10 ; 
in Num. xvi. 9. Comp. c. Cels. viii. 33, 57 ; 
Horn, in Jud. vi. 2 ; Horn. ii. in Ps. xxxvii. 6 ; 
Sel. in Ps. p. 365 L. 

The ruling thought of his interpretation ia 
suggested by John vi. : " corpus Dei Verbi aut 
sanguis quid aliud esse potest nisi verbum quod 
nutrit et verbum quod lactificat ?" (in Matt. 
Comm. Ser. § 85) ; " bibere autem dicimur san- 
guinem ChrUti non solum sacramentorum ritu 
sed et cum sermones eius recipimus in quibus 
vita consistit, sicut et ipse dicit, X'erba quae 
locutus sum spiritus et vita est " (Horn, in Num. 
xvi. § 9 ; comp. xxiii. § 6). The passage which 
is often quoted to shew "a presence of Christ in 
the sacrament extra usum," indicates nothing 
more than the reverence which naturally belongs 
to the consecrated elements (consecratum munus, 
Horn, in Ex. xiii. 3). 

The kiss of peace was still given " at the time 
of the mysteries" (in Cant. i. p. 331 L.), "after 
prayers " (in Horn. x. § 33) ; and the love-feast 
("AydVn) was sufficiently notorious to form a 
subject of Celsus's attacks (c. Cels. i. 1); but the 
practice of " feet-washing," if it ever prevailed, 
was now obsolete (in Joh. xxxii. § 7 ; Horn, in Is. 
vi. § 3). It may be added that the use made of 

■ In commenting on Rom. vi. 3 In this passage he 
meets the question which may be asked, how It is that 
8t Paul Bpeaks of baptism M in the name of Christ Jesus," 
" while baptism 1b not held to be lawful unless under the 
name of the Trinity.** 

In Horn, in Execk. vi. 6. there appears to be a re- 
ference to the use of salt and milk and the white robe. 
Comp. in Rim. v. } 8 I. e 

Digitized byV^jOOQlC 


James t. 14, in Horn, in Lev. ii. 4, does not give 
any support, as has been often affirmed, to the 
practice of extreme unction. 

The treatise On Prayer gives, as has been 
seen, a vivid picture of the mode and attitude of 
prayer. It was usual to turn to the east (De 
Oral. 31 ; Horn, in Num. v. § 1). Standing and 
kneeling are both recognised (De Orat. I. c. ; 
Horn, m Num. xi. § 9 ; comp. m Sam. Horn. 
i. § 9). Forms of prayer were used (Horn, in 
Jer. xiv. § 14) ; and prayers were made in the 
vernacular language of each country (c. Celt. 
viii. 31). 

Origen frequently refers to confession as made 
to men and not to God only (Horn, in Luc. xvii. ; 
De Orat. 28 ; Horn. ii. in Ps. xxxvii. § 6) ; and 
reckons penitence completed by such confession 
to a " priest of the Lord " as one of the modes 
for forgiveness of sins {Horn. ii. in Lev. § 4). 
At the same time he speaks elsewhere of public 
confession (l(ofio?viyvois) to God as efficacious 
(Horn, i. in Ps. xxxvi. § 5), a form of penitence 
to be adopted after wise advice (Horn. ii. m Ps. 
xxxvii. § 6) ; and while he adopts the common 
but false view of Matt. xvi. 18, he supposes that 
the efficacy of " the power of the keys " depends 
upon the character of those who exercise it (in 
Matt. torn. xii. § 14). 

Discipline was enforced by exclusion from 
common prayer (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 89); 
and for more serious offences penitence was 
admitted once only (Bom. in Let. xr. § 2). 
Compare also what is said on " sin unto death " 
(Bom. in Lev. xi. 2). Those who had offended 
grievously after baptism were looked upon as 
incapable of holding office (c Celt. iii. 51). 

The threefold ministry is noticed as if it were 
universally recognised : and Origen speaks of 
presbyters as priests, and deacons as Levites 
(Ham. in Jerem. xii. 3). The people were to be 
present at the ordination of priests (Bom. m 
Lev. vii. 3). At the same time he recognises 
emphatically the priesthood of all Christians 
who "have been anointed with the sacred 
chrism " (Bom. in Lev. ix. 9 ; comp. Bom. in 
Num. v. 3; in Jo*, vii. 2; comp. Exh. ad 
Martyr. 30). 

Widows are spoken of also as having a definite 
place in the organization of the church (Horn. 
us Is. vi. § 3 ; Bom. in Luc. xvii.) ; and yet it 
does not appear that they were combined in 
any order (in Sam. x. §§ 17, 20). 

As yet no absolute rule was made as to the 
celibacy of the clergy. Origen himself was 
inclined to support it by his own judgment 
(Ham. m Lev. vi. f 6). " No bishop, however, 
or presbyter or deacon or widow could marry a 
second time " (Bom. in Luc. xvii.) : such Origen 
held to be in a second class, not " of the church 
without spot " (I. c ; but comp. note on 1 Cor. 
vii. 8). It was a sign of the difficulties of the 
social position of Christians that some " rulers 
of the church" allowed a woman to marry 
again while her husband (presumably a Gentile 
who had abandoned her) was still living (in 
Matt. torn. xiv. § 23). 

Origen's own example and feeling were 
strongly in favour of a strict and continent life 
(comp. c. Gels. vii. 48; Bom. in Gen. t. 4), 
while he condemns false asceticism (in Matt. 
Comm. Ser. $10). He enforces the duty of 
systematic almsgiving (id. § 61) ; and maintains 




that the law of offering the firstfruits to God, 
that is to the priests, is one of the Mosaic pre- 
cepts which is of perpetual obligation (Bom. in 
Num. xi. 1 ; comp. c. Cels. viii. 34). Usury is 
forbidden (Bam. iii. m Ps. xxxvi. § 11). The 
rule as to food laid down in Acts xv. 29, was 
as has been seen, still observed (m Rom. ii. § 13, 
p. 128 L. ; c. Cels. viii. 30). 

The reverence of Christian burial is noticed 
(Bom. in Lev. iii. § 3 ; o. Cels. viii. 30). Military 
service, according to Origen, was unlawful for 
Christians (c. Cels. v. 33, viii. 73), though he 
seems to admit exceptions to the rule (id. iv. 82). 

VI. Origen as critic and interpreter.' 

Origen regarded the Bible as the source and 
rule of truth (Bom. in Jer. i. § 7). Christ is 
" the Truth," and they who are sure of this seek 
spiritual knowledge from His very words and 
teaching alone, given not only during His earthly 
presence, but through Moses and the prophets 
(De Princ. Praef. 1). The necessary points of 
doctrine were, Origen held, comprised by the 
apostles in a simple creed handed down by tradi- 
tion (De Princ. Praef. ii.), but the fuller exhibi- 
tion of the mysteries of the gospel was to be 
sought from the Scriptures. In this respect he 
made no sharp division between the Old and New 
Testaments. They must be treated as one body, 
and we must be careful not to mar the unity of 
the Spirit which exists throughout (in Joh. x. 13 ; 
comp. De Princ. ii. 4). The divinity of the Old 
Testament is indeed first seen through Christ 
(De Princ. iv. 1, 6). 

1. The Canon of Scripture. — In fixing the con- 
tents of the collection of sacred books Origen 
shews some indecision. In regard to the Old 
Testament he found a serious difference between 
the Hebrew Canon and the books which were 
commonly found in the Alexandrine Greek 
Bible. In his Commentary on the first Psalm 
he gives a list of the canonical books (at 
iySidevKoi filPKoi) according to the tradition 
of the Hebrews, twenty-two in number (ap. 
Euseb. B. E. vi. 25). In the enumeration the 
Book of the Twelve (minor) Prophets is omitted 
by the error of Eusebius or of his transcriber, 
for it is necessary to make up the number ; and 
the " Letter " (Baruch vi.) is added to Jeremiah, 
because (apparently) it occupied that position in 
Origen's copy of the LXX., for there is no evi- 
dence that it was ever included in the Hebrew 
Bible. The Books of the Maccabees, which 
(1 Mace.) bore a Hebrew title, were not included 
in the number (t(tt roirctv «Vrf). 

Bat while Origen thus gives a primary place 
to the books of the Hebrew Canon, he expressly 
defended, in his letter to Africanus, the use 
among Christians of the additions found in the 
Alexandrine LXX. (comp. p. 122). He was un- 
willing to sacrifice anything which was sanctioned 
by custom and tended to edification. His own 
practice reflects this double view. He never, as 
far as we know, publicly expounded any of the 
apocryphal books of the Old Testament, while he 
habitually quotes them as having authority, 

p In addition to the general works already referred to 
the essay of J. J. Boohlnger (Argentor. 1829-30), Dt O. 
allegorica S.S. interprttatumc may be noticed as Im- 
partial and foil In detail. There Is another essay on the 
subject by C. R. Hagenbach (Basil. 183.1) 


Digitized by 




though he frequently notices, while he does so, 
that their authority was challenged. 

So we find references to the Books of Maccabees 
(De Princ. ii. 1, 5 ; in Joh. xiii. 57) ; to Baruch 
{Horn, in Ex. vii. 2 ; Comm. in Bom. ii. § 7) ; to 
Ecclesiasticus (in Joh. torn, xxxii. 14 ; Horn. ii. o» 
Ps. 39, § 7) ; to Wisdom (in Joh. xxviii. 13, rfris 
-rpoe-lnai; comp. torn, xx.4; De Prow, iv. 33); 
to Tdbit (De Orat. 14 ; Comm. in Bom. viii. § 1 1) ; 
to Judith (in Joh. vi. § 16); to the Additions to 
Esther and to Daniel, in the letter to Africanus. 

In addition to these books, which had a cer- 
tain sanction in the church, Origen quotes also 
the Book of Enoch (o. Cels. v. 55 ; De Princ. iv. 
35 ; Horn, in Num. xxviii. 2), the Prayer of Joseph 
(in Joh. ii. 25, tt tii rpotricTcu), the Assumption 
of Moses (ffom. in Jos. ii. 1), and the Ascension 
of Isaiah (De Princ. iii. 2, 1 ; Horn, in Jos. ii. 1 ; 
comp. in Matt. t. x. 18) ; and it is probably to 
books of this type that he refers in the interesting 
remarks on "apocryphal " books in Proi. in Cant. 
p. 325 L. 

How far Origen was from any clear view of 
the history of the books of the Old Testament 
may be inferred from the importance which he 
assigns to the tradition of Ezra's restoration of 
their text from memory after the Babylonian 
captivity (Set. in Jer. xi. p. 5 L. ; Set. m Ps. id. 
p. 371). 

His testimony to the contents of the New 
Testament is more decided. Ho notices the 
books which were generally acknowledged in the 
church as possessing unquestionable authority ; 
the Four Gospels [the Acts-'], 1 Peter, 1 John, 
thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. To these he adds 
the Apocalypse, for he seems to have been 
unacquainted with its absence from the Syrian 
Canon (ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 25). In another 
passage, preserved only in the Latin translation 
of Rufinus (Horn, in Jer. vii. 1), he enumerates 
all the books of the received New Testament, 
without addition or omission, as the trumpets 
by which the walls of the spiritual Jericho are 
to be overthrown (the Four Gospels, 1st and 2nd 
Peter, Jamais, Jude, the Epistles and Apocalypse 
of St. John, the Acts by St. Luke, fourteen Epistles 
of St. Paul). This enumeration, though it can- 
not be received without reserve, may represent 
his popular teaching. In isolated notices he 
speaks of the disputed books as received by some 
but not by all (Epistle to tlie Hebrews, ap. Euseb. 
ff. E. vi. 25 ; Ep. ad Afric. % 9 ; James t »"» Joh. 
xix. 6 ; 2nd Peter, ffom. in Lev. iv. 4; Jude, in 
Matt. torn. x. 17, xvii. 30); and it was according 
to his spirit to accept, in a certain sense, whatever 
tended to edification, though he appears to have 
limited doctrinal authority to the acknowledged 
books (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 28). 

In addition to the " controverted " books 
which have found a place in the New Testa- 
ment, Origen quotes most frequently and with 
the greatest respect the Shepherd of Hennas 
(e. g. De Princ. 1. 3, 3, iv. 11 ; in Matt. torn. xiv. 
§ 21 ; in Bom. x. 31, p. 437 L.).' 

i This book is not specially mentioned, but Origon's 
usage is decisive as to the position which be assigned to 
it. The tacit omission is a good illustration of the danger 
of trusting to negative evidence. 

' The statement of Tarlnus, however (Phitoc. p. «83), 
that Origen wrote a commentary on the Sltepherd appears 
to be simply a false deduction from the word Itiryovfu&t 
(I'MUk. i. p. 23,11). 


He quotes also or refers to the Epistle (i.) of 
Clement, " a disciple of the apostles " (De Princ. 
ii. 3, 6 ; in Joh. torn. vi. 36 ; Set. in Ez. viii. 3) ; 
"the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas" (c Gels. i. 
63 ; De Princ. iii. 2, 4 ; comp. Comm. in Bom. i. 
§ 18), the Gospel according to the Hebrews (in Joh. 
torn. ii. 6, iay ■Kpoalnai tis ; ffom. in Jer. it. 
4 ; in Matt. torn. xv. 14, Vet. int. Lot. ; comp. 
Hier. de Virr. 111. 2), the Gospels " according to tlut 
Egyptians," and "according to the Tacit* 
Apostles," "according to Thomas," and "after 
Matthias" (Horn. 1 in Luc., "Ecclesia quatuor 
habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, e quibus ..." 
the Gospel according to Peter, the Booh of James 
(in Matt. x. 17, rov imyeypa/iiiiytn) Kara TMrpor 
tbayyeKlov t) ttJ$ $t0Kov 'lajaipov), Peter's) 
Preaching (in Joh. xiii. 17 ; De Princ Praef. 8, 
Petri doctrine.), the Acts. of Paul (in Joh. xx. 
12.) De Princ. i. 2, 3), the Clementines (Comm. 
Ser. in Matt. § 77 ; in Gen. iii. § 14, al mploioi), 
some form, of the Acts of Pilate (in Matt. Comm. 
Ser. § 122), the Testaments of the Twelve Pa- 
triarchs (in Joh. xv. 6), the Teaching of the- 
Apostles (?) (Horn, in Levit. xi. 2). 

Sayings attributed to the Lord are given » 
Matt. torn. xiii. § 2, xri. § 28 (Set. m Ps. p. 432 L. 
and De Orat. §§ 2, 14, 16 ; comp. Matt. vi. 33), 
xvii. § 31 ; in Jos. iv. 3. A few traditions are 
preserved : in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 126 (Adam 
buried on Calvary) ; id. § 25 (death of the father 
of John Baptist); c Cels. i. 51 (the cave and 
manger at Bethlehem); c. Celt. vi. 75 (the ap- 
pearance of Christ) ; Horn, in Ezech. i. 4 (the 
baptism of Christ in January).' 

Anonymous quotations occur, ffom. in Luc 
xxxv. ; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 61 ; ffom. in Ezech. 
i. 5 ; in Bom. ix. § 2. 

2. The Teat.— It will be evident, from what 
has been said, that Origen had very little of the 
critical spirit, in the modern acceptation of the 
phrase. This is especially seen in his treatment 
of the biblical texts. His importance for textual 
criticism is that of a witness and not of a judge. 
He gives invaluable evidence as to what he found, 
bnt his few endeavours to determine what is 
right, in a conflict of authorities, are for the 
most part unsuccessful both in method and 
result. Generally, however, he makes no at- 
tempt to decide on the one right reading. He 
is ready to accept all the conflicting readings 
as contributing to edification. Even his great 
labours on the Greek translations of the Old 
Testament were not directed rigorously to the 
definite end of determining what was the 
authentic text, but mainly to recording the 
extent and character of the variations. Having 
done this, he left his readers to follow their 
own judgment (Comrn. in Matt. xv. 14: Ira ... 
i ph> f}ov\6pitvos Ttplrtrrax airri, f Si wpoffxinrrtt 
to roioSrov, o fioi\trat wtpl ttjj nfatojris 
aVT&v t) /ii) iroriioTj). [HexafLa.1 

This want of a definite critical aim is more 
decisively shewn in his treatment of the New 
Testament. Few variations are more remark- 
able than those in Hebr. ii. 9 : x^P' T ' S(0 " an d 
X»pU Beov. Origen was acquainted with both, 
and apparently he was wholly unconcerned to 

■ His statement as to the duration of the Lord's min- 
istry, for " a year and a few months" (de Princ. iv. 6), 
cannot be included in this list. Comp. Redepenning, d* 
Princ. p. 49. 

Digitized by 



nuke a choice between them ; both gave a good 
sense, and that was a sufficient reason for using 
both (in Joh. torn. i. 40 : cfre t( x«p' 5 6t0 *> • • • 
rfr« x&peri Joh. xxviii. 14 : the Latin of 
Comm. m Som. iii. § 8, t. § 7, sine .Deo, is of no 
authority for Origen's judgment). 

In other cases of less importance he notices 
the existence of various readings in the same 
manner : Matt. xvi. 20 (Suo-rcf Aaro, i*tr((ir)<rty ; 
Comm. in Matt. xii. § 15) ; Matt. XTili. 1 (0p<p, 
■flfttpa; Comm. in Matt. xiii. § 14) ; Mark iii. 18 
(Af0fauor: c. Ceh. i. 62); Luke ix. 48 (fVrf, 
ftrrai ; Comm. m Matt. xiii. § 19) ; Luke xiv. 19 
(Fragm. m Luc. p. 241 L.) ; John i. 4 (some read 
rdx* oil hrieiytts itrrtf for 1\v ; in Joh. ii. § 13). 

In Matt, xxvii. 17 Origen found '\-qaovv 
Bap*0$ar in his copy, but he inclined to the 
omission of "InffoEv, with many copies, " that 
the name Jesus should not be applied [contrary 
to the other evidence of Scripture] to an evil- 
doer " (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 121 ; comp. § 33 ; 
and schol. ap. Galland). 

In noticing the variation in Luke xxiii. 45 he 
supposes that the phrase toB y\lov cVXchroiros 
(-XiwoVtoi) was introduced in place of kcu ioKo- 
rfoftj t l(Xioj either from a false desire for clear- 
ness or by the malice of adversaries (m Matt. 
Comm. Ser. §134) ; and though he himself qnotes 
the reading without remark elsewhere, the cri- 
ticism is quite according to his style. 

In discussing the scene of the cure of the de- 
moniac (Matt. viii. 28 ; Mark v. 1 ; Luke viii. 26) 
he decides peremptorily, on geographical argu- 
ments, that Tfpatntvuv and Totafnviv must 
both be wrong, and that Ttpytffalaiv (t*pyt- 
vapip) must be read in all places, for in his 
time the scene of the miracle was shewn in the 
neighbourhood of Gergesa, though it does not 
appear certainly from his language that he 
found Ttpytoalw in any evangelic text. 

In Rom. iii. 5, if the Latin version of his com- 
mentary can be trusted, he seems to have found 
in his Greek copy Kara butpinm (Comm. in Som. 
iii. § 1, pp. 163, 167 L.). It is more difficult to 
determine whether the omission of ph in Rom. 
v. 14 (M rote afiafT.) is simply due to Rufinus 
or not (id. v. § 1, p. 344 L.).' 

Sometimes Origen indulges in conjectures 
without any adequate ground. Thus he suspects 
that the phrase in Matt. xix. 19, byar. t. w. <rov 
is a. has been inserted, supporting the opinion 
by the fact that the words are not found in 
St. Mark or St. Luke (in Matt. xv. § 14). In 
Matt. v. 45 he thinks that inuv may be an addi- 
tion of copyists (in Joh. xx. § 15). In Matt. 
xxvii. 9 he offers as an alternative explanation 
of the difficulty the substitution of "Jeremiah " 
for " Zechariah " by an " error of writing " (in 
Matt. Comm. Ser. § 117). 

The following passages in the Latin transla- 
tions may also be noticed: Comm. Ser. in Matt. 
§ 43 (Matt. xxiv. 19) : $ 118 (Mark xiv. 61) : 
Horn, in /*. ii. § 1 (Matt. i. 23) -, Earn, in Luc. 
rii. (Luke i. 46) : Comm. in Som. vi. § 7 (Rom. 
rii. 6). 

The remarks on the variations of Latin MSS. 
are interesting in themselves but foreign to 
Origen — e.g. Comm. m Som. iii. § 6 (Rom. iii. 19) ; 



vii. $ 4 (c. viii. 22) ; ix. §§ 10, 12 (c. xii 11, 13) ; 
ix. § 42 (Matt. XT. 20). 

Of Origen's conjectures (if indeed it is simply 
a conjecture) the most famous is Bn0ajS<xp$ for 
Br)8avitf , in John i. 28, which he maintained for 
local reasons. But when he says that HjjflaWa 
was found ox*tbv ir rcurt rots iyrtypi^ots he 
implies that he found some other reading which 
may have been Bi)0altyn (Bijflapafla). 

In spite of these drawbacks, which are practi- 
cally of far less moment than appears from an 
enumeration of particulars drawn from a large 
area, Origen's importance as a witness to the 
true text of the New Testament is invaluable. 
Notwithstanding the late date and scantiness of 
the MSS. in which his Greek writings have been 
preserved, and the general untrustworthiness of 
the Latin translations in points of textual detail, 
it would be possible to determine a pure text of 
a great part of the New Testament from his 
writings alone (comp. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. 
t ii.). 

In some respects his want of a critical spirit 
makes his testimony to the text of the New 
Testament of greater value than if he had fol- 
lowed consistently an independent judgment. 
He reproduces the characteristic readings which 
he found, and thus his testimony is carried back 
to an earlier date. At different times he used 
copies exhibiting different complexions of text ; 
so that his writings reflect faithfully the varia- 
tions to which he refers generally. Griesbach 
called attention to the most conspicuous illustra- 
tion of this fact. He shewed by a wide induc- 
tion from the variations in St. Mark that the 
evangelic text which Origen used while writing 
his commentary on St. Matthew, which was one 
of his latest works, was of the type generally 
described as " Western " (of which D is the best 
representative), while that used by him in writ- 
ing his earlier commentary on St. John was of 
an " Alexandrine " character in the wider sense 
(represented by B C L) (Griesbach, Comm. Crit. 
Partk. ii. pp. x. ff. 1811, with which may be 
compared his early essay Be codicibus Etxmgg. 
IV Origeniaiiis, 1771. Opuscula, i. 226 ff.). 

But while Origen's quotations are of the 
highest textual value, great care is required in 
using the evidence which they furnish. He 
frequently quotes from memory, and combines 
texts ; and in some cases gives several times a 
reading which he can hardly have found in any 
MS. (e.g. 1 John iii. 8, yeyeVcirrai). Illustra- 
tions of this perplexing laxity occur in Bom. in 
Jer. i. 15 (Matt. iii. 12, xiii. 39); id. iv. 2, v. 1 
(Acts xiii. 26, 46) ; id. iv. 4 (Luke xviii. 12) ; id. 
v. 1 (Tit. iii. 5 f.). 

3. Interpretation. — Origen has been spoken 
of as the founder of a new form of literature 
in Biblical interpretation ; and justly, though 
others, among whom Heracleon was conspicuous, 
had preceded him in expositions of Scripture 
more or less continuous. Origen himself con- 
stantly refers to interpretations of his predeces- 
sors : * to Heracleon in Joh. ii. 8 and constantly ; 
in Matt. x. § 22 (rir irpb ripa* t«), xiv. § 2 (id.) t 
xvii. § 17 (v6ftav Uouy h\Kiryoplai), xvii. § 28 ; 
in Matt. Comm. Ser. §§ 31, 69, 75, 126 ; Horn. 

- It may however be noticed that c. Celt. vi. 3S Is not 
opposed to the present reading In Mk. vi. 3. 

• Fabriclns has given an Important collection of writers 
quoted by Origen, BMiotk. Oraeco, vii. 244 ff. (ed. 

K 2 

Digitized by 




in Luc. xxxiv. (quidam de presbyteris) ; in Bom. 
iv. § 10, p. 304 L., vi. § 7, p. 40 L. ; Horn, in Gen. 
r. § 5, it. § 6 ; in Ex. xiii. 3 ; in Levit. viii. 6 ; 
in Num. ix. 5 ; in Jos. xvi. 1, 5 ; in Jvd. viii. 4 ; 
in 1 Sam. i. 1 ; in Ps. xxrvi., Horn, ii. 6, Horn. 
iv. 1 ; in Jerem., c. Celt. ii. 25. 

It is probable that these references arc in 
many cases to homilies or isolated treatises, but 
at any rate they give a striking view of the 
extent of Christian thought and literature in the 
2nd century and at the beginning of the 3rd. 

Origen's method of interpreting Scripture was 
a practical deduction from his view of the inspir- 
ation of Scripture. This he developed in the 
fourth book of the treatise On First Principles. 
Briefly he regarded every "jot and tittle "as 
having its proper work (Horn, in Jer. xxxix. fr. 
ep. Philoc. c. x.). All is precious ; not even the 
least particle is void of force (in Matt. torn. xvi. 12). 
Comp. Ep. ad Greg. § 3 ; in Joh. torn. i. § 4. Minute 
details of order and number veil and yet suggest 
great thoughts (e.g. Sel.inPss. xi. 370, 377 L.). 
It follows that in interpretation there is need of 
great exactness and care (in Gen. torn. iii. p. 46 L. ; 
Philoc. xiv.), and scrupulous study of details (in 
Joh. xx. 29). Origen himself illustrates his 
principles by countless subtle observations of great 
interest — e.g. in Matt. xii. § 22 (c. iv. 10, orUrct 
fxav and trrpatptls) ; id. § 35 (c. xvi. 28, yti<raa-$ai 
iar&rov) ; xiii. § 31 (c. xvi. 19, o&pavol) ; xiv. 15 
(c. ix. 9, ayaaris) ; xv. § 9 (c. xii. 15) ; xv. § 28 
(c. xx. 4 ff.); in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 83 (o. 
xxvi. 24, oV oV) ; id. § 90 (c. xxvi. 37, flp{<rro) ; 
id. § 100 (c. xxvi. 50, <p(\t) ; in Horn. v. § 6 (c. 
ii. 8, ipyv) ; Bom. in Gen. iv. § 5, viii. § 1, xv. 
§ 9, xvi. § 3 ; in Levit. xiv. § 3 ; in Num. xii. 
§ 2, xiv. § 3, xvi. § 2, xxir. § 2, xxvii. § 6; in 
Ezech. ix. § 2. 

In these criticisms the skill with which he 
combines passages from different parts of Scrip- 
ture in illustration of some particular phrase or 
detail is specially to be noticed— e.g. in Matt. c. 
xiii. § 3 (c. xvii. 4 f.) ; id. xiv. § 14 (c. xix. 1, 
tri\*o-(); id. xvi. § 4 (c. xx. 21, Ka0(<ra<rtr) ; in 
Joh. xxxii. 2 (p. 381 L., dpiarov). Each term 
calls np far-reaching associations ; and all Scrip- 
ture is made to contribute to the fulness of the 
thought to be expressed. 

One practical consequence followed from Ori- 
gen's sense of the value of each word of Scripture. 
He recognised the necessity of learning Hebrew 
that he might be confident as to the original form 
of the records of the Old Testament. It must not 
however be supposed that he studied Hebrew 
with the spirit of a modern scholar. He seems 
to have contented himself with being able to 
identify the Hebrew corresponding with the 
Greek texts before him (comp. Sel. in Pss. xi. 
pp. 355 f. L.). Nor did he always take the 
trouble to do this. In his Homilies he constantly 
follows the Greek text, when it differs widely 
from the Hebrew, without marking the variation 
(e.g. Horn, in Jos. xxvi., a most remarkable 
example ; Bom. in Jos. xxiv. § 1 ; Bom. in Cant. 
i. § 6, Cant. viii. 5). 

In other cases he notes variations of the Greek 
copies without any reference to the Hebrew (Bom. 
m Num. xxviii. 4, Dent, xxxii. 8, a crucial ex- 
ample : comp. Bom. in Ezech. xiii. § 1 ; in Joh. 
torn. xiii. § 24, 1 K. xix. 12 ; in Joh. xx. § 20, Ps. 
rviii. (xix.) 10 ; Bom. in Ezech. xi. 1 ; Bom. in 
Jer. viii. 1, Job xxvi. 7) ; and he even appears 


to have obelized passages in consideration o* 
the agreement of "the other editions" (at 
Aonral lirtoVcis) alone (in Joh. xxviii. 13, Num. 
xxiii. 6). 

Elsewhere he notes the variation of the Greek 
copies from the Hebrew (Bom. in Cant. ii. § 4, 
Prov. xxvii. 10 ; Set. in Pss. p. 360 L. ; in Rom. 
viii. § 5, Is. liii. 1 ; id. § 7, Ps. lxviii (lxix.) 22; 
id. § 11, Is. lix. 20 ; Sel. in Pss. p. 366 L. ; in 
Ezech. vi. 4, xiii. 4 ; in Jer. xiv. 3) ; and in one 
place at least he notes the readings of " two 
Hebrew copies " (&/. in Pss. xi. p. 393 L). 

Sometimes he implies that his knowledge of 
the Hebrew reading depends on the information 
of others (Bom. in Num. xvi. 4, " Hebraei habere 
se scriptum dicunt," Jonah iii. 5 ; in Horn. ii. § 13, 

fi. 136 L.); and in especial be quotes what he 
earnt in conversation with " Iullus flovAAos) 
the patriarch " ("of Alexandria ?] (Sel. in Pss. pp. 
352 ff. ; comp. flier. Apol. i. § 3, Buillus). 

In one place he confounds the letters n and 2, 
supposing that Ahimelech of 1 Sam. xxi. is called 
by a slight change Ahimelech in the heading of 
Ps. xxxiv. (xxxiii.), "since the Hebrew letters 
Caph and Beth differ only by a small stroke " 
(Sel. in Pss. p. 363 L.). On the other hand, he 
notices the idiomatic usage of 1 (Bom. in Num. 
xix. 3). 

When he marks the variation he gives no 
paramount authority to the Hebrew text (Bom. 
m Num. xviii. 3, in " Hebraeorum codicibus ... re- 
peri, quibui quamvis non utamur, tamen agnos- 
cendi gratia dicemus etiam ibi quae legimus," Dan. 
i. 17; Horn, in Gen. iii. 5, "codices ecclesiae. . . 
Hebraeaexemplaria. . ."), but keeps faithfully to 
the LXX (in Cant. i. p. 344 L., " nos LXX. inter- 
pretum scripts per omnia custodimus ;" comp. 
note on Gen. iii. 24, p. 59 L.). 

But though his critical knowledge of Hebrew- 
was slight he evidently leamt much from Hebrew 
interpreters, and not unfrequently he quotes 
Hebrew traditions and " Midrash " (Sel. in Gen. 
ii. 8 ; Bom. in Ex. v. § 5 ; in Num. xiii. 5 ; in 
Bom. x. § 7, p. 397 L. ; in Matt. xv. 5 ; Sel. in 
Pss. p. 374 L. ; Prol. in Cant. pp. 289 f. ; Bom. 
in Is. i. § 5, ix. ; Bom. in Ezech. iv. 8, x. 3 ; 
compare an interesting note on the sacred name 
*I«rij, Sel. in Ps. xi. p. 396 L.). He gives also 
an interpretation of " Corban " (in Matt. torn, 
xi. 9) and of" Iscariot" (in Matt. Comm. Ser. 78) 
from Jewish sources. 

The most characteristic use which he makes of 
his knowledge is in the mystical interpretation 
of a series of names. These interpretations are 
often striking, even when they are based upon 
false etymologies (e.g. Bom. in Jos. xx. 5 ; Horn, 
in Ex. v. ; comp. Redepenning, Origenes, i. pp. 
458 ff). 

While Origen thus endeavoured to apply the 
principle that every word of Scripture has its 
lesson to all the sacred records without differ- 
ence, he was met at once by the moral and his- 
torical difficulties of the Old Testament (comp. 
De Princ. iv. 1 = Philoc. 1 ff. throughout). To 
obviate these he systematized the theory of a 
"spiritual sense," which was generally if vaguely 
admitted by the church (De Princ. 1, Praef. 8). 
There is, he taught, generally, a threefold mean- 
ing in the text of the Bible, literal (historical), 
moral, mystical, corresponding to the three ele- 
ments in man's constitution, body, soul, and spirit 
(De Princ. iv. 11; Bom. in Lev. v. §§ 1, 5). So it ii 

Digitized by 



that Scripture has a difl'ereut force fur different 
ages and for different readers, according to their 
circumstances and capacities (m Rom. ii. § 14, p. 
150 L). Bat all find in it what they need.* 

This threefold sense is to be sought for both 
in the Old and in the New Testament. The 
literal interpretation brings out the simple 
precept or fact : the moral meets the individual 
want of each believer : the mystical illuminates 
features in the whole work of Redemption {Horn, 
in Let. i. §§ 4 f., ii. § 4 ; De Princ. iv. 12, 13, 22). 
There is then manifold instruction for all be- 
lievers in the precise statement, the definition 
of practical duties, the revelation of the divine 
plan, which the teacher must endeavour to bring 
out in his examination of the text. Origen him- 
self steadily kept this object in view. Examples 
of his method have been noticed in the brief 
r.nalysis which has been given of his exegetical 
writings. It will be sufficient here to refer to 
Horn, in Gen. ii. § 6, xvii. §§ 1, 9 ; in Ex. i. § 4, 
iii. § 3 ; in Lev. v. § 5, vii. § 1 ; in Num. ix. § 7 ; 
ami for the application of the method to the New 
Testament to in Matt. torn. xvi. § 12, xiv. §§ 2 f. ; 
in Matt. Comm. Ser. 17 ff. 27. 

Sometimes indeed he holds that only two of 
the three senses coexist, when the literal sense 
cannot be maintained (e. g. tn Matt. Comm. Ser. 
43, 1 Tim. ii. 15 ; comp. Horn. r. in Ps. xxxvi. 5) ; 
and even when the letter is true, the ideal mean- 
ing is of greater importance (in Matt. Comm. 
Ser. 77, Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.). At the same time 
Origen affirms generally the literal truth both 
of the Old and of the New Testament (e.g. Frag. 
in Philem. and Frag, in Galat. p. 269 L. ; comp. 
De Princ. ir. 19). 

It is easy to point out serious errors in detail 
in Origen's interpretation of Scripture. On 
these there is no need to dwell. It is however 
of importance to mark that which was his main 
defect, and the real source of his minor faults. 
He was without true historic feeling. He speaks 
of the difficulty of history (c. Ceh. i. 42) ; and 
he seems to have given up all idea of realising 
the changing conditions of life during the fulfil- 
ment of the counsel of God. He had therefore 
no law of proportion to assist him in judging of 
the primitive phases of revelation. He refused 
to interpret life in the phases of its growth, and 
converted it into a riddle. For him prophecy 
ceased to have any vital connexion with the 
trials and struggles of a people of God ; and 
psalms (cjj. Ps. 1.) were no longer the voice of a 
believer's deepest personal experience. 

In this respect Origen presents, though in a 
modified form, many of the characteristic defects 
of Rabbinic interpretation. It is not indeed 
unlikely that he was directly influenced by 
the masters of Jewish exegesis. Just as they 
claimed for Abraham the complete fulfilment 
of the Law, and made the patriarchs perfect 
types of legal righteousness, Origen also refused 
to see in the Pentateuch any signs of inferior 
religious knowledge or attainment. The pa- 
triarchs and prophets were, in his opinion, as 
wise by God's gifts as the apostles (in Joh. vi. 3) ; 
and the deepest mysteries of the Christian reve- 
lation could be directly illustrated by the records 



* The relation of Origen's principles generally to those 
of the Alexandrine school has been discussed by Klhn, 
Theater v. Mopeaettia, pp. 20 ff. 

of their lives and words (in Joh. ii. 28), though 
sometimes he seems to feel the difficulties by 
which his position was beset (in Joh. xiii. 46; 
comp. c. Ceh. vii. 4 ff.). 

But while this grave defect is most distinctly 
acknowledged, it must be remembered that 
Origen had a special work to do, and that he 
did it. In his time powerful schools of Christian 
speculation disparaged the Old Testament or 
rejected it. Christian masters had not yet been 
able to vindicate it from the Jews and for 
themselves. This task Origen accomplished. 
From his day the Old Testament has been an 
unquestioned part of our Christian heritage, 
and he fixed rightly the general spirit in which 
it is to be received. The Old Testament, he says, 
is always new to Christians who understand and 
expound it spiritually and in an evangelic sense, 
new not in time but in interpretation (Horn, in 
Num. ix. § 4 ; comp. c. Ceh. ii. 4). If in pressing 
this conclusion he was led to exaggeration, the 
error may be pardoned in regard to the greatness 
of the service. The principle itself becomes more 
fruitful when history and criticism are allowed 
the fullest activity, within their own sphere, in 
dealing with Scripture, a part which Origen was 
unable to give to them. 

Moreover Origen's method was fixed and con- 
sistent. He systematized what was before tenta- 
tive and inconstant (comp. Itedepenning, De 
Princ. pp. 56 f.). He laid down, once for all, 
broad outlines of interpretation ; and mystical 
meanings were not arbitrarily devised to meet 
particular emergencies. The influence of his 
views is a sufficient testimony to their power. 
It is not too much to say that the mediaeval 
interpretation of Scripture in the West was 
inspired by Origen; and through secondary 
channels these mediaeval comments have passed 
into our own literature. 

Origen indeed was right in principle. "He 
felt that there was something more than a mere 
form in the Bible : he felt that ' the words of 
God ' must have an eternal significance, for all 
that comes into relation with God is eternal : 
he felt that there is a true development and a 
real growth in the elements of divine revelation, 
it not in divine communication, yet in human 
apprehension : he felt the power and the glory 
of the spirit of Scripture bursting forth from 
every part." No labour was too great to bestow 
upon the text in which priceless treasures were 
enshrined : no hope was too lofty for the inter- 
preter to cherish. This conviction Origen has 
bequeathed to us that it may be embodied more 
fully than he could embody it. 
VII. Oriqen as a Theologian.' 
Origen was essentially the theologian of an 
age of transition. His writings present prin- 
ciples, ruling ideas, tendencies, but they are 
not fitted to supply materials for a system of 
formulated dogmas, after the type of later con- 
fessions. Every endeavour to arrange his opinions 
according to the schemes of the 16th century, 
can only issue in a misunderstanding of their 
general scope and proportion. This is sufficiently 
clear from the outline which has been already 

» In addition to works treating of Origen's opinions 
generally, the essay of P. Fischer, Oommentatio de O. 
T1\eologia et Comologia (Halls, 1845), Is worthy of 

Digitized by 




given of his treatise On First Principles. The 
whole structure of this work, which presents a 
connected view of his intellectual apprehension 
of Christianity, is widely different from mediae- 
val and modern expositions of the faith. At 
the outset Origen gives a clear exposition of 
what were acknowledged to be the doctrines 
held generally by the church, corresponding 
in the main with the Apostles' Creed, which 
is of the highest interest (De Princ. Praef); 
and starting from this he endeavours to deter- 
mine, by the help of Scripture and reason, sub- 
jects which were left open or unexplored. But his 
inquiries and his results were profoundly in- 
fluenced by his circumstances. They cannot be 
judged fairly when taken out of their connexion 
with contemporary thought. The book contains 
very little technical teaching. It is silent as to 
the sacraments. It gives no theory of the atone- 
ment : no discussion of justification. Yet it does 
deal with problems of thought and life which lie 
behind these subjects. 

Origen fonnd himself face to face with power- 
ful schools, which within and without the church 
maintained antagonistic views on man, the world, 
and God, in their extremest forms. There was 
the false realism, which found expression in Mon- 
tanism : the false idealism, which spread widely 
in the many forms of Gnosticism. Here the 
Creator was degraded into a secondary place; 
there God Himself was lost in His works. Some 
represented men as inherently good or bad from 
their birth : others swept away moral distinc- 
tions of action. Against all Origen sought to 
maintain two great truths which inspire all 
writings, the unity of all creation, as answering 
to the thought of a Creator infinitely good and 
infinitely just ; and the power of moral deter- 
mination in rational beings. The treatment and 
the apprehension of these two truths is modified 
for man by the actual fact of sin. The power of 
moral determination has issued in present dis- 
order ; and the divine unity of creation has to be 
realised hereafter. Origen therefore looks at the 
world as it is, and strives to find in revelation 
some solution for the riddles which it offers. 
His aim is to help his readers to gain a practical 
conception of what he holds to be the central 
truth of life, that the whole sum of finite being, 
even in its present state, offers an intelligible 
manifestation ot the goodness and righteousness 
of God in every detau, not only consistent with 
but dependent upon the free and responsible 
action of each individual, which forms a decisive 
element in the fulfilment of the divine counsel 
(on the ideas of Foreknowledge, Providence, the 
Divine will, see Phiioc. c. 25 ; t'n Rom, i. 3 p. 18 
L. ; m Gen. torn. iii. 6 p. 21 ; in Gen. Horn. iii. 
2; 20). 

In the attempt to establish this conception 
Origen does not conceal or extenuate the evils 
which are everywhere visible in the world. He 
believes that Scripture throws light upon them, 
and that in obedience to its guidance we must 
seek knowledge of God, of the Incarnation, of the 
origin and differences of rational creatures in 
heaven and on earth, of the creation, and of the 
causes of the wickedness which is spread over 
the earth and (as it appears) elsewhere (fie 
Princ. iv. 14). 

1. Finite Beings, Creation, Man, Spirits.— He 
goes backward therefore : he endeavours to pass 


from the outward to the inward, from the tem- 
poral to the eternal. He argues that it is im- 
possible to think of God without a creation: 
of a king without subjects; even as it is im- 
possible to think of a Father without a Son 
(comp. Phot. Cod. 235). In doing this he dimly 
feels the contradictions which follow from apply- 
ing words of time (like "always") to God. 
Though in one sense there always was a finite 
order (fie Princ. i. fragm. Gr. 2), the world 
was not coeternal with God {De Princ. ii. 1, 4). 
Affirming this truth Origen thinks that we shall 
best realise the fact of creation, according to our 
present powers, by supposing a vast succession of 
orders, one springing out of another (ill ii. 1, 3). 
The present order, which began and will end in 
time, must, as far as we can conceive, be one 
only in the succession of corresponding orders 
(De Princ. iii. 5, 3). The word used for the 
foundation of the world (icara/3oA4) really im- 
plies that it owes its being to a " dejection," a 
casting down from some loftier state (td. iii. 5, 4 ; 
in Joh. ix. 5). It points to a fall in another 
order. To understand the actual constitution of 
things which we see we must consequently form 
some idea of a beginning, if such a word can be 

"In the beginning," then, he writes, "when 
God created what He was pleased to create, that 
is rational natures, He had no other cause of 
creation beside Himself, that is His own good- 
ness " (De Princ. ii. 9, 6 ; comp. iv. 35). This 
creation answered to a definite thought, and 
therefore, Origen argues, was definite itself. 
God " could " not create or embrace in thought 
that which has no limit (De Princ. ii. fragm. 
Gr. 6 ; ii. 9, 1 ; iv. fragm. Gr. 4). The rational 
creatures which He made were all originally 
equal, spiritual, free. There was no ground for 
their difference. But moral freedom, including 
personal self-determination, gave occasion to dif- 
ference. Finite creatures, once made, either ad- 
vanced, through imitation of God, or fell away, 
declined, through neglect of Him (id. ii. 9, 6). 

Evil, it follows, is negative, — the loss of good 
which was attainable, the shadow which marks 
the absence or rather the exclusion of light. 
But as God made creatures for an end, so He 
provided that they should, through whatever 
discipline of sorrow, attain to it. He made 
matter also, which might serve as a fitting ex- 
pression for their character, and become, in the 
most manifold form, a medium for their training. 
So it was that, by various declensions, " spirit " 
(rrtviuCf lost its proper fire and was chilled into 
a " soul " (tyvxb"), and " souls " were embodied in 
our earthly frames in this world of sense. Suck 
an embodiment was a provision of divine wisdom 
by which they were enabled, in accordance with 
the necessities of the fact, to move towards the 
accomplishment of their destiny (De Princ. i. 

Under this aspect man is a microcosm. (Bom. 
in Gen. i. 11 ; in Lev. v. 2 : mtellige te et alium 
mundum esse parvum et intra te esse solem, esse 
lunam, etiam steUas.) He stands in the closest 
connexion with the seen and with the unseen • 
and is himself the witness of the correspondences 
which exist between the visible and invisible 
orders (Horn, in Num. xi. 4, xvii. 4, xxiv. 1, 
xxviii. 2 ; Horn. i. m Ps. xxxvii. 1 ; in Joh. torn, 
xix. 5, xxiii. 4; De Princ iv. fragm, Gr. p. 

Digitized by 



184 R.). He in made for the spiritual and can- 
not find rest elsewhere. Hence it is that Origen 
combats with nnirearying earnestness every ten- 
dency to units indissolnbly present conditions 
with the future, or to trust to deductions drawn 
from the temporal and local limitations of present 
human observation. The grossness of Millenari- 
anism filled him with alarm (De Princ. ii. 11, 2 ; 
comp. Sel. in Ps. xi. p. 449 L.). The literal 
assertion of anthropomorphic conceptions of God 
seemed to him to overthrow the faith (comp. 
Hum. in Gen. iii. 2; Sel. in Gen. i. 26). And 
those who are familiar with the writings and 
influence of Tertullian will know that Origen's 
opposition to materialism in every form was 
called for by pressing dangers. 

As a necessary consequence of his deep view of 
nun's divine kinsmanship, Origen labours to give 
distinctness to the unseen world. He appears 
already to live and move in it. He finds there 
the realities of which the phenomena of earth 
are shadows (comp. in Rom. x. § 39). External 
objects, peoples, cities, are to him veils and 
symbols of invisible things. And more than this. 
Not only is there the closest correspondence 
between the constitution of different orders of 
being, there is also even now a continuation of 
unobserved intercourse between them (comp. 
de Princ. ii. 9, 3). 

Angels (see De Princ. i. 8, iii. 2, throughout) 
are supposed to preside over the working of ele- 
mental forces, over plants and beasts (in Num. 
Horn. xiv. 2 ; in Jer. Bom. x. 6 ; c. Celt. viii. 31 ; 
De Princ iii. 3, 3), and it is suggested that 
nature is affected by their moral condition (in 
E'.tch. Earn. iv. 2). More particularly men were, 
in Origen's opinion, committed to the care of 
spiritual "rulers," and deeply influenced by 
changes in their feeling and character (in Joh. 
Jiii. §58; comp. De Princ. i. 8, 1). Thus he 
maintained that there are guardian angels of 
cities and provinces and nations (Horn, in Luc. 
iii. ; De Princ. iii. 3, 2), a belief which he sup- 
ported habitually by the LXX. version of Deut. 
xxxii. 8 (in Matt. torn. xi. § 16 ; in Luc. Horn. 
xxxv. ; m Rom. viii. § 8 ; in Gen. Horn. xvi. 2 ; 
in Ex. Bom. viii 2 ; in Ezech. Bom. xiii. 1 f., 
ic). Individual men also had their guardian 
angels (m Matt. i~ xiii. 27 ; in Luc. Bom. xxxv. ; 
in Num. Bom. xi. 4, xx. 3 ; in Ezech. Bom. i. 7 ; 
■a Jui. vi. 2 ; De Princ. iii. 2, 4) ; and angels 
are supposed to be present in the assemblies of 
Christians, assisting in the devotions of the faith- 
ful (De Orat. xxxi. p. 283 L. ; Bom. m Luc xxiii. ; 
c Celt. viii. 64). 

But while Origen recognises in the fullest 
degree the reality and power of angelic ministra- 
tion, he expressly condemns all angel-worship 
(c. Gsfa. v. 4, 11). 

On the other hand Origen held that there are 
spiritual hosts of evil corresponding to the 
angelic forces, and matched in conflict with 
them (en Matt. torn. xvii. 2 ; in Matt. Comm. Ser. 
5 102 ; Bom. in Jot. xv. 5). He even speaks of 
a Trinity of evil (in Matt. xi. § 6, xii. § 20). 
An evil power strives with the good for the sway 
of individuals (in Bom. i. § 18) ; and thus all 
life is made a straggle of unseen powers (e. g. 
notes on Ps. xxrvii. ; in Joh. xx. §§ 29, 32 ; Horn. 
xx. in Jot. fragm.). 

One aspect of this belief had a constant and 
powerful influence on daily life. Origen, like 



most of his contemporaries, supposed that evil 
spiritual beings were the objects of heathen 
worship (c. Cels. vii. 5). There was, in his 
opinion, a terrible reality in their agency. 
Within certain limits they could work so as to 
bind their servants to them. 

But the intercourse between the seen and 
unseen worlds was not confined, according to 
Origen's opinion, to the intercourse of angels 
and demons with men. He believed that the 
dead also influence the living. 

The actions of men on earth last, in their 
effects, after the actors have departed (t>» Rom. 
ii. 4, p. 80 L.). Disembodied (or unembodied) 
souls are not idle (in Matt. xv. 35). So the 
" soul " of Christ preached to " souls * (c. Celt. 
iii. 43). And, in especial, the saints sympathize 
with man still struggling on earth with a sym- 
pathy larger than that of those who are clogged 
by conditions of mortality (De Orat. xi. ; in 
Matt. torn, xxvii. 30 ; in Joh. torn. xiii. 57 ; iii. in 
Cant. 7). They help us not only by the examples 
of their lives and the lessons of their books, but 
also by their prayers (Bom. in Num. xxvi. 6 ; in 
Jos. xvi. 5); and they can pray with a better 
knowledge of our true wants than we have our- 
selves (Exh. ad Mart. 30, 38 ; Bom. in Jos. xvi. 
§ 5 ; comp. De Orat. 14). But in this connexion 
Origen's silence as to prayers of the living for 
the dead is most remarkable. Prayers to the 
dead, like prayers to angels, are excluded by his 
view of the one object of all prayer (c. Celt. 
viii. 64). The innumerable hosts of spirits help 
us uncalled (id.). 

Such views as have been indicated give a 
mysterious solemnity to the laws of creation (c. 
Cels. iv. 8), bound together in all its visible 
parts, and in all its parts bound to the 
invisible, and destined to judgment (in Ezech. 
Horn. iv. 1). Origen dwells upon them with 
devout partiality. He strives, not always sue* 
cessfully, to give them clearness and consistency. 
But he is happier in the assertion of his main 
principles, and he himself acknowledges that it 
must be so. The range of human observation, 
the scene of human experience, are, he repeats 
again and again, very small (in Rom. viii. § 10, 
p. 260 ; § 12, p. 280). Still we can trace cor- 
respondences in the periods of the divine dis- 
pensations (in Matt. xii. § 3 ; comp. in Matt. xv. 
§ 31), and feel the dependence of phenomena one 
on another,* and the life and sympathy which 
unites all being (in Rom. i. 9, p. 35 L. ; De Princ 
I 7,5; 8,2). 

What has been said of Origen's opinions as to 
the wider relations of life, makes his view of 
man's position in the visible world more intelli- 
gible. His presence and condition here are due, 
as has been seen, to the fact of evil, of which 
the origin is referred to some unknown sphere 
(e. Celt. iv. 65 ; comp. in Joh. xiii. § 37). When 
placed in the world man, ns a rational being, was 
still endowed with freedom, that is, moral re- 
sponsibility (in Num. xii. 3). On this Origen 
insists with the greatest earnestness. (See De 
Princ iii. = PhUoc 20; id. i. 5, 5 »./.) But 
every one is sinful (c. Cels. iii. 69), a sign of 
which he sees in the baptism of infants (Bom. 

• It Is a characteristic Illustration of tbls belief that 
Origen allows that there may be a true science of astro' 
logy, though not for us (Comm. in Oen. ill. y 9). 

Digitized by 




mLuc. viii. 3; in Horn. v. § 9, p. 397 L.), though 
all sins are not equal (Bom. in Ex. x. 3, peccata 
ad damnum, ad mortem) ; and grace is required 
for the doing of all good (c. Cels. vi. 78 ; comp. 
Horn, in Num. xx. 3). Every one also can justly 
be called to account for his corruption (Horn, m 
Jer. ii. 1). 

But while Origen does not extenuate the effects 
of man's sin, he maintains a lofty view of the 
nobility of his nature and of his destiny (c. Cels. 
iv. 25,30) ; and so he holds that the world has 
been made by divine wisdom to be a 6tting 
place for the purification of a being such as man 
(iDeiVinc. ii. 1, 1 ; 2,2; 3,1; e. Cels. vi. 44 ; comp. 
»'» Rom. viii. 10, p. 261) ; and that everything 
has been so ordered by Providence from the first 
as to contribute to this end (De Princ. ii. 1, 2). 
Man can, if he will, read the lesson of his life : 
he has a spiritual faculty, by which he can form 
conclusions on spiritual things, even as he is 
made to form conclusions on impressions of 

The body, so to speak, reflects the soul ; the 
" outer man " expresses the " inner man " (in 
Horn. ii. 13, p. 142 L.). There is imposed upon 
us the duty of service (in Watt. Comm. Ser. § 66), 
and there is the largest variety of offices (in Joh. 
t. x. 23), room being made even for the meanest 
(Horn, in A'um. xiv. 2, p. 162 L.). 

All this is determined by law, that is, by the 
will of God ; and God has not left man without 
spiritual knowledge (in Rom. i. 16). All alike 
have a natural law within them (id. ii. 8, 9, 
iii. 6 ; c. Cels. i. 4 ; Horn, in Num. x. 3). This 
" law of nature " is the " law of God " (in Rom. iii. 
2, p. 177 L.). God Himself cannot break it, since 
He would then cease to be God (c. Cels. v. 23). 
It folio ws therefore that alleged miracles must 
be brought to a moral test (c. Ce!s. ii. 51, iii. 27). 
True miracles are "signs " (in Joh. vi. 17). The 
perception of the " law of nature " comes with the 
development of reason (in Rom. vi. 8, pp. 43 f. L.); 
and he who loyally follows its injunctions, though 
he has not the faith of Christ, be he Jew or 
Gentile, will not lose an appropriate reward (io*. 
ii. 7, p. 98 L.). 

The visible creation thus bears, in all its parts, 
the impress of a divine purpose ; and the Incar- 
nation was the crowning of the creation, by which 
the purpose was made fully known, and provision 
made for its accomplishment (De Princ. iii. 5, 6). 
2. Theology. The Incarnation. The Person 
of Christ. The Holy Trinity. The work of Christ. 
— On no subject is Origen more full or more 
suggestive than on this (De Princ. i. 2, ii. 6, 
iv. 31). No one perhaps has done so much to 
vindicate and harmonize the fullest acknowledg- 
ment of the perfect humanity of the Lord and of 
His perfect divinity in one Person. His famous 
image of the " glowing iron" (De Princ. ii. 6, 6) 
made an epoch in Christology. Here and there 
his language is liable to misconception, or even 
found to be erroneous by later investigations, 
but he laid down the ontlines of the faith, on 
the basis of Scripture, which have not been 
shaken. He maintained, on the one hand, the 
true and perfect manhood of Christ, subject to 
the conditions of natural growth, against all 
forms of Docetism ; and, on the other hand, he 
maintained the true and perfect divinity of the 
" God Word " (fltbi Koyos), which was so united 
with "the man Christ Jesus," through the human 


soul, as to be one person, against all forms ef 
Ebionism and Patripassionism (De Princ n. 
6, 3). 

Origen's doctrine of the Incarnation of the 
God Word rests in part upon his doctrine of the 
Godhead. " All," he held, " who are born again 
unto salvation, have need of the Father, Sora, 
and Holy Spirit, and would not obtain salvation 
unless the Trinity were entire " (De Princ. i. 3, 5). 
Hence he speaks of baptism as " the beginning 
and fountain of divine gifts to him who offers 
himself to the divinity of the power of the invo- 
cations of the adorable Trinity " (ray t?» wpoff- 
KWijTijs rpiiSos fwtK\ii<rtttp) (in Joh. vi. 17).* 
But there is, in his judgment, a difference in the 
extent of the action of the Persons in the Holy 
Trinity. The Father, "holding all things to- 
gether, reaches (<p$dv<i) to each being, imparting; 
being to each from that which is His own, for 
He is absolutely (&r yap tarir). The Son is less 
than the Father (i\drrav xapi r. «.), reaching 
only to rational beings, for He is second to the 
Father; and, further, the Holy Spirit is less 
(ffrroy), and extends (Swcvoi/uvor) to the saints- 
only. So that in this respect (xarii toSto) the 
power of the Father is greater in comparison 
with (*apd) the Son and the Holy Spirit ; and 
that of the Son more in comparison with the 
Holy Spirit ; and, again, the power of the Holy 
Spirit more exceeding (5ta<pipovaa fiaWov) in 
comparison with all other holy beings." But 
to rightly understand this passage it is of primary 
importance to observe that Origen is not speaking; 
of the essence of the Persons of the Godhead, but 
of their manifestation to creatures (comp. De- 
Princ. i. 3, 7).* Essentially the three Persons are 
of one Godhead, and eternal. The subordination 
which Origen teaches is not of essence but of per- 
son and office. His aim is to realise the Father as 
the one Fountain of Godhead, while vindicating 
true deity for the Son and the Holy Spirit. In 
this respect he worked out first the thought of 
" the eternal generation " of the Son, which was 
accepted from him by the catholic church as the 
truest human expression of one side of the mys- 
tery of the essential Trinity. 

Generally it may be remarked that Origen's- 
specific opinions spring from a comparison of 
what man is and needs with the broad revelation 
of God in Scripture. Looking within he is con- 
scious of personal existence, thought, hallowing, 
and in each relation he recognises the action of 
the one God.* He feels that, however imper- 
fectly, the relations thus existing in himself 
correspond to something in the divine nature. 
So he interprets what Scripture and the role 
of the church taught of the Holy Trinity. The 
Trinity of revelation answers to the trinity of 
being, but it is of the former that he treats: 
human thought can rise no higher with distinct 

* There can be no question as to the authenticity of 
this passage, and of the nae of the word Tpiat . It must 
have escaped Redepennlng's recollection when he wrote 
his confident note on the date of the term : de Princ 1, 
3, *, p. 136. 

b Compare Marechal. Concord. Pp. e. v. $ 9, and Bp. 
Dull, Dtf. Fid. JVic. c. Ix. (reprinted by Delarue), so 
Origen's view of subordination. 

• Comp. Meier, D. UKrt c. A- Trinitit, i. ISO. 

Digitized by 



(For fuller details on Origen's teaching on the 
Holy Trinity it most be sufficient to refer to De 
Princ. i. 5, 3 ; iv. 27 f. ; m Rom. vi. 13, p. 158 L., 
riii. 4, p. 216 L. ; in Num. xii. 1 ; fraijm. in Gen. 
tnm. i. p. 4 L. ; c. Cels. riii. 12 ft". ; and especially 
tn Joh. torn. ii. 1 S. For his doctrine of the 
Father, see De Princ. i. 1.) 

The peculiar connexion which Origen re- 
cognises between the Son (the God Word) and 
rational beings establishes (so to speak) the fit- 
ness of the Incarnation. The Son stood in a 
certain affinity with rational souls; and the 
human soul with which He was united in the 
Incarnation had alone remained absolutely pure, 
by the exercise of free choice, in its pre-existence 
(De Princ. ii. 6, 5). Through this union all 
human nature therefore was made capable of 
being glorified, without the violation of its char- 
acteristic limitations (comp. c. Cell. iii. 41 f.). 
The body of Christ was perfect no less than His 
son! (c. Cels. i. 32 {.). 

Fuller illustrations of Origen's views will be 
found in — tn Joh. torn. xii. 25, 34, 36, torn, xxxii. 
17 ; <n Matt. torn. xv. 24, xvi. 8, xvii. 14 
(&t<$oy«w) ; in Rom. iii. 8, p. 208 L., vii. 5, 
p. 107, 14, p. 158 ; fragm. in Bebr. p. 300 L. ; 
Horn, n Lev. xiii. 4 ; in Jer. i. 7 (human pro- 
Cress); in Etech. i. 10; Horn, in Luc. xix. ; in 
Jiom. riiL 4 (prayer to Christ) ; c. Cels. ii. 9. 
Compare also in addition to the general works 
on the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, H. Schutz, 
Die Christotogie d. Origenes, Jahrbb. f. Prot. 
Theot., 1875. 

The work of Christ was, Origen emphatically 
maintained, for all men and for the whole of man 
(comp. c. Celt. iv. 3 f.). It was therefore so re- 
vealed that it could be apprehended according to 
the several powers and wants of believers (in 
Matt. torn. xii. 36, 41, xv. 241, xvii. 19 ; c. Cels. 
iv. 15, vi. 68; in Joh. ii. 12). Christ became, 
in a transcendent sense, "all things to all men " 
(De Princ. iv. 31 ; in Joh. torn. xix. 1, xx. 28 ; 
comp. c Cels. iii. 79). And there is still a 
present continuous manifestation of Christ. He 
is ever being born (Bom. in Jer. ix. 4). Ha is 
seen even now, as He was seen by the eye of 
faith, as each believer has the faculty of seeing 
(c. Cels. ii. 64, iv. 15, vi. 77 ; in Matt. xv. 7 ; 
Horn, in Luc. iii.). And as each reflects Him, 
he becomes, in the apostolic sense, himself a 
Christ, an anointed one (in Joh. torn. vi. 3 f.). For 
the union of God and man, which was accom- 
plished absolutely in Christ, is to be fulfilled 
in due measure in each Christian (c. Cels. iii. 28 ; 
m Joh. i. 30), as Christ had made it possible (in 
Matt. torn. xiii. 9). 

Origen thus insists on the efficacy of Christ's 
work for the consummation of humanity and of 
the individual, as a victory over every power of 
evil. He dwells no less earnestly upon the value 
of the life and death of Christ as a vicarious 
sacrifice for sin. He seeks illustrations of the 
general idea of the power of vicarious sufferings 
in Gentile stories of self-sacrifice (c. Cels. i. 31), 
and extends it to the case of martyrs (Exh. ad 
Mart. c. 42; comp. in Joh. torn. vi. 36; xxviii. 14). 
And though he does not attempt to explain how 
the sacrifice of Christ was efficacious, he fre- 
quently presents it as a ransom given to redeem 
man from Satan, to whom sin had made man a 
debtor. Christ, in His own person, freely paid 
the debt, by bearing the utmost punishment of 



sin, and so set man free, " giving His soul (i^i'x^)) 
as a ransom for him " (in Mutt. torn. xvi. 8 ; in 
Rom. ii. 13, p. 140 L. ; Comm. Ser. in MM. § 135). 
At other times he regards it as a propitiation 
for the divine remission of sins (Horn, in A'uro. 
xxiv. 1 ; in Lev. i. 3 : comp. c. Cels. vii. 17). 

As a necessary consequence of his view of the 
connexion of all things, Origen held that the 
death of Christ was salutary for the whole world 
(c. Cels. iii. 17); and of avail for heavenly beings, 
if not for the expiation of sin yet for advance- 
ment in blessedness (Horn, in Lev. i. 3, ii. 3 ; tn 
Rom. v. »./., p. 409 L. ; id. i. 4 ; Bo-n. in Luc. x.). 
Thus in a true sense angels themselves were dis- 
ciples of Christ (in Matt. torn. xv. 7). 

At times indeed Origen speaks as if he sup- 
posed that the Word was actually manifested to 
other orders of being in a manner corresponding 
to their nature, even as He was revealed as soul 
to the souls in Hades (Sel. in Ps. iii. 5, xi. p. 
420 L.). In this sense also he thinks that " He- 
became all things to all," an angel to angels (tn 
Joh. torn. i. 34) ; and he does not shrink from 
allowing that His Passion may be made available, 
perhaps in some other shape, in the spiritual 
world (De Princ. iv. fr. Graec. 2 ; comp. iv. 25, 

The work of the Holy Spirit, according to 
Origen, is fulfilled in believers. His office is 
specially to guide to the fuller truth, which is 
the inspiration of nobler life. Through Him 
revelation comes home to men. He lays open 
the deeper meanings of the word. Through 
Him, " who proceeds from the Father," all 
things are sanctified (De Princ. iii. 5, 8). 
Through Him every divine gift which is 
wrought by the Father and ministered by the 
Son, gains its individual efficiency (in Joh. torn. ii. 
6). Thus there is a unity in the divine operations, 
which itself tends to establish a unity in created 
beings. (For the doctrine of the Holy Spirit 
generally see De Princ. i. 3, iii. 7 ; tn Jolt. 
torn. ii. 6.) 

3. The consummation of being. — These charac- 
teristic lines of speculation lead to Origen's 
view of the consummation of things. All human 
thought must fail in the endeavour to give 
distinctness to a conception which ought to 
embrace the ideas of perfect rest and perfect 
life. Origen's opinions are further embarrassed 
by the constant confusion which arises from the 
intermingling of ideas which belong to the close 
of the present order (al&v) and the close of all 
things. It is again impossible to see clearly how 
the inalienable freedom of rational beings, which 
originally led to the Fall, can be so disciplined 
as to bring them at last to perfect harmony. 
This however Origen holds; and though he is 
unable to realise the form of future purification, 
through which souls left unpurified by earthly 
existence will be cleansed hereafter, he clings to 
the belief that " the end must be like the begin- 
ning " (De Princ. i. 6, 2), a perfect unity in God. 
From this be excludes no rational creature. The 
evil spirits which fell have not lost that spirit 
by which they are akin to God, which in its 
essence is inaccessible to evil (in Joh. xxxii. 11, 
avrrlttKTov r&v xfiooVw to rvevfui rov 4»- 
epibrov), though it can be overgrown and over- 
powered (comp. De Princ. i. 8, 3). And, on the 
other hand, freedom remains even when perfect 
rest has been reached, and in this Origen appears 

Digitized by 




to find the possibility of future declensions (De 
Princ. ii. 3, 3 ; fragm. Or. ii. 2). Whether 
natter, the medium through which rational 
freedom finds expression (De Princ. iv. 35), will 
at last cease to be, or be infinitely spiritualised, 
he leaves apparently undetermined. The ques- 
tion is beyond man's powers (id. i. 6, 4, ii. 2, ii. 
3, 3, iii. 6, 1). 

Origen evidently feels that the same is true of 
many speculations which he follows some way. 
He warns his readers that he is dealing with 
subjects which man has no power to determine, 
though he cannot but look upon them and ponder 
them (De Princ. i. 6, 1 f., iii. 4, 5 «./.). And 
so he presents, in imaginary outlines, the picture 
of the soul's progress through various scenes of 
chastisement or illumination (De Princ. i. 6, 3, 
iii. 6, 6, iii. 5, 6 ff., and Redepenning's note), till 
he can rest in the thought of a restoration in 
which law and freedom, justice and love, are 
brought to a perfect harmony (comp. De Orat. 
§ 27, p. 227 L.). 

This thought Origen pursues in his endeavour 
to form some theory of future punishments. All 
future punishments exactly answer to individual 
sinfulness (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 16), and, like 
punishments on earth, they are directed to the 
amendment of the sufferers (c. Cels. iv. 10 ; Horn, 
in JSzech. v. 1). Lighter offences can be chastised 
on earth : the heavier remain to be visited here- 
after (Horn, in Let. xiv. 4). In every case the 
uttermost farthing must be paid, though final 
-deliverance is promised (in Rom. v. 2 (.). 

In this connexion Origen looked forward to a 
fiery ordeal, through which men should pass in 
the world to come. Every one already baptized 
with water and Spirit would, he thought, if he 
needed cleansing, be baptized by the Lord Jesus 
in a river of ore, and so purified enter into 
paradise (Horn, in Luc. xxiv.). And in this sense 
also he looked forward to a (spiritual) conflagra- 
tion of the world, by which all beings in need of 
such discipline should be at once chastised and 
healed (o. Cels. v. 15 ; comp. iv. 13). 

On the other hand, since the future state is 
the direct fruit of this, there are, so Origen held, 
varieties of blessedness in heaven (in Rom. iv. 12), 
corresponding to the life of saints (id. ix. 3, 
p. 303), and foreshadowed by the divisions of 
Israel (Horn, in Num. i. 3 ; id. xxviii. 2 ; Horn. 
in Jos. xxv. 4). Speaking generally the believer 
after death enters upon a being of fuller know- 
ledge and loftier progress (De Princ. ii. 11, 6). 
The resurrection of the body completes the full 
transfiguration, without loss, of all that belongs 
to his true self; and he begins a nobler develop- 
ment of body and soul — moral, intellectual, 
spiritual — by which he is brought nearer to the 
throne of God (comp. De Princ. i. 3, 8; in 
Matt. Comm. Ser. § 51 ; Horn. i. in Ps. xxxviii. 
4 6). The relationships of earth come to an end 
(in Matt. torn. xvii. 33 : on this point Origen is 
not consistent). The visible ceases, and men 
«njoy the eternal, for which now they hope (in 
Rom. vii. 5). 4 

* None of Origen's opinions was more vehemently 
assailed than his teaching on the Resurrection. Even 
his early and later apologists were perplexed In their 
defence of him. Yet there Is no point on which bis In- 
sight is more conspicuous. By keeping strictly to the 
apostolic language he anticipated results which we bare 


Thus human interest is removed from the 
present earth to its heavenly antitype. And it 
is probably due to this peculiarity of his teach- 
ing that Origen nowhere, as far as I have ob- 
served, dwells on the doctrine of Christ's return, 
which occupies a large place in most schemes of 
Christian belief. The coming of Christ in glory 
is treated as the spiritual revelation of His true 
nature (De Princ. iv. 25), though Origen says 
that he by no means rejects " the second pre- 
sence (4-rtSrnila) of the Son of God more simply 
understood " (in Matt. torn. xiL 30). 

VIII. Characteristics. — A few words, neces- 
sarily fragmentary and inadequate, may be added 
to indicate Origen's position in the great line of 
Christian teachers ; though the sketch of his 
works and opinions which has been given (apart 
from any comment) will be sufficient to convey 
a fair idea of his merits and of his failings. He 
is above all things a Christian philosopher. With 
a firmer conviction of the universal sovereignty 
of truth, a larger grasp of facts, and a deeper 
sympathy with the restless questionings of the 
soul than any other father, he claims for the 
domain of Christianity every human interest and 
power : he affirms that it is capable of co- 
ordinating all thought and all experience. He 
excludes indeed all irrational beings from the 
final unity to which he looks (De Princ. iii. 6, 2) ; 
but by giving a soul to the sun and stars he 
strives after a fuller feeling of fellowship be- 
tween man and nature than his knowledge 
enables him to support. 

It cannot be surprising that Origen failed to 
give a consistent and harmonious embodiment to 
his speculations. His writings represent an as- 
piration rather than a system, principles of re- 
search and hope rather than determined formulas. 
At the same time his enthusiasm continually 
mars the proportion of his work. His theorizing 
needs the discipline of active life, without which 
there can be no real appreciation of history or 
of the historical development of truth. The 
absence of a clear historic sense is indeed the 
spring of Origen's chief failures. Yet even in 
regard to the practical apprehension of the 
divine education of the world it is only necessary 
to compare him on one side with Philo and on 
the other with Augustine, to feel how his grasp 
of the significance of the Incarnation gave him 
a sovereign power to understand the meaning 
and destiny of life. 

In the pursuit and expression of his great 
thoughts Origen sought knowledge from every 

hardly yet secured. He saw that it is the "spirit "which 
moulds the frame through which It is manifested ; that 
the •■ body " Is the same not by any material continuity, 
but by the permanence of that which gives the law, the 
*• ratio" (Atfyot), as he calls it, of Its constitution. No 
exigencies of controversy, it must be remembered. brought 
Origen to bis conclusion. It was in his Judgment the 
clear teaching of St. Paul. The subject has been care- 
fully discussed by C. Ramera In a special essay : Da O. 
Lehre mm d. Atiferttekung d. Fleitchet, Trier, 1861. His 
judgment is worth quoting :— " Die Lehre dee Origenes 
von der Auferstehung ... In alien wesentllchen Punk- 
ten mit der kathollschen Lehre Ubereinstlmmt . . . Und 
wie sonderbar auch die Lehre dee Origenes In manchen 
Punkten . . . kllngen mag, so mochte es doch vlellelcht 
sohwer ru entscheiden seto, ob sle . . . Bonderbarer 1st, 
•Is die Lehre, welche in spiiterer Zeit manche Scholastiker 
liber dlesen Punkt aufstellten " (} J J t). 

Digitized by 



quarter, by conversation and by reading. Hi* 
attendance on philosophic lectures at Alexandria 
has been noticed. And in different parts of his 
writings he presents parallels with the teaching 
of various schools of Greek thought (comp. 
Boehringer, pp. 226, 395, If.). These may be 
due partly to the direct influence which they 
exercised upon him and partly to the speculative 
atmosphere of the time.* 

But while Origen was ready to acknowledge to 
the fullest the claims of reason (comp. Bom. in 
Luc. i. p. 88 L.), he lays stress on the new data 
which are given by revelation to the solution of 
the problems of philosophy (De Pri'uc. i. 5, 4). 
Again and again he points out the insufficiency 
of reason, of the independent faculties of man, 
to attain to that towards which it is turned. 
Reason enables man to recognise God when He 
makes Himself known, to receive a revelation 
from Him in virtue of his affinity with the 
Divine Word, but it does not enable the creature 
to derive from within the knowledge for which 
it longs. It follows that the capacity for know- 
ing God belongs to man as man, and not to man 
as a philosopher. Origen therefore acknowledges 
the nobility of Plato's words when he said that 
" it is a hard matter to find out the Maker and 
Father of the Universe, and impossible for one 
who has found Him to declare Him to all men." 
But he adds that Plato affirms too much and too 
little (c. Cels. vii. 43). As Christians " we de- 
clare that human nature is not in itself com- 
petent in any way to seek God and find Him 
purely without the help of Him who is sought, 
of Him who is found by those who confess after 
they have done all in their power that they have 
yet need of Him . . ." (Comp. Clem. Al. Cohort. 

The fact that our results on earth will be to 
the last fragmentary and tentative does not in- 
terfere with the reality of the spirit which 
quickens the Gospel. "Sow," he says, "we seek 
for a while, then we shall see clearly " (De JPrinc. 
ii. 11, 5). But both in the search and in the 
fruition the object is the same. The fulness of 
Trnth, which is finally nothing less than a 
manifold revelation of God leading np to absolute 
fellowship with Him, is that towards which the 
believer is led by the Spirit alike through 
thought and feeling and action. 

For Origen, while he looks upon knowledge as 
the noblest ambition and divinest reward of 
rational beings, never dissociates it from action. 
This made Christian philosophy the common 
possession of all. (Comp. o. Cels. vi. 2; iii. 
44, ff.) No teacher of the present day could 
insist with greater earnestness npon the im- 
portance of conduct than he does. There is 
absolutely nothing in which he does not see 
ethical influences. His thought wearies itself 
in following out the effects of action, for all 
action is to be referred to God (Horn, in Num. 
xzv. 3). Without perpetuating the associations 
of the present, he strives to give definiteness to 
oar conceptions of the continuity of the spiritual 
life. He carries the sense of responsibility up to 
the highest orders of finite existence. His system 
is a system of absolute idealism, but of idealism 
a* a spring for action. " God cares," he says, 

• A list of the authors whom he quotes Is given In 
Fabrfcms, BiU. Or. vtL 



" not only for the whole, as Celsus thinks, but 
beyond the whole in an especial manner for each 
rational being " (c. Cels. iv. 99). Thus in his 
doctrine of the re-incorporation of souls there is 
nothing accidental, nothing capricious, as in 
Plato's famous Myth. The belief, according to 
him, represents to human apprehension a judg- 
ment of Infinite Righteousness executed by In- 
finite Love. It is an embodiment, if I mar so 
express it, of two principles, which he assumes 
as axioms — the first that every gift of God is 
perfect, and the second that God's gift to His 
rational creatures was not virtue, which it could 
not be by the nature of the case, but the capacity 
for virtue. 

In the endeavour to fashion a Philosophy of 
Christianity it may be fully admitted that 
Origen did not practically recognise the limits 
and imperfection of the human mind which he 
constantly points out. His gravest errors are 
attempts to solve that which is insoluble. The 
question of the origin of the soul, for example, is 
still beset by the same difficulties as Origen 
sought to meet, but they are ignored. So too it 
is with regard to his speculations on an endless 
succession of worlds. Thought must break down 
soon in the attempt to co-ordinate the finite and 
the infinite. But with whatever errors in de- 
tail, Origen laid down the true lines on which 
the Christian apologist must defend the faith 
against Polytheism, Judaism, Gnosticism, Mate- 
rialism. These forms of opinion without the 
Church and within it were living powers of 
threatening proportions in his age, and he vin- 
dicated the Gospel against them as the one 
absolute revelation, prepared through the dis- 
cipline of Israel, historical in its form, spiritual 
in it* destiny. 

In this respect the principles which he affirmed 
and strove to illustrate have a present value. 
They are fitted to correct the Africanism which, 
since the time of Augustine, has dominated 
Western theology; and, at the same time, they 
anticipate in many ways difficulties which have 
come into prominence in later times. In the face 
of existing controversies, it is Invigorating to feel 
that when as yet no necessity forced upon him 
the consideration of the problems which are now 
most frequently discussed, a Christian teacher, 
the master and the friend of saints, taught the 
moral continuity and destination of all being, 
interpreted the sorrows and sadnesses of the 
world as part of a vast scheme of purificatory 
chastisement, found in Holy Scripture not the 
letter only but a living voice eloquent with 
spiritual mysteries, made the love of truth, in all 
its amplitude and in all its depth, the right and 
the end of rational beings, and reckoned the fuller 
insight into the mysteries of nature as one of the 
joys of a future state. 

Such thoughts bring Origen himself before us. 
Of the traits of his personal character little need 
be said. He bore unmerited sufferings without 
a murmur. He lived only to work. He com- 
bined in a signal degree sympathy with zeal. 
As a controversialist he sought to win his adver- 
sary and not simply to silence him (comp. 
Euseb. B.E. vi. 33). He had the boldest con- 
fidence in the troth which he held, and the ten- 
derest humility in regard of his own weakness 
(m Joh. torn, xxxii. 18 ; tn Matt. torn. xvi. 13). 
When he ventures freely in the field of interpre- 

Digitized by 





tations, he asks that he may be supported by the 
prayers of his hearers. His faith was catholic, 
and therefore he welcomed every kind of know- 
ledge as tributary to its fulness. His faith was 
living, and therefore he was assured that no age 
could seal any one expression of it as complete. 
In virtue of this open-hearted trust, he kept 
unchilled to the last the passionate devotion of 
his youth. And therefore he was enabled to 
leave to the Church the conviction, attested by 
a life of martyrdom, that all things are its 
heritage because all things are Christ's. 

IX. EDITIONS. — The earliest edition of any part 
of Origen's works was an edition of the Homilies, 
which is described by Panzer (Annates Typo- 
graphici, iv. 13 ; comp. p. 462, and Maittaire, 
i. p. 351) as Homcliae B. Qregorii papae et Ori- 
genis Presbyteri ...; and again by Maittaire 
(Annates T^pographici, i. p. 355; comp. p. 351) 
simply as Origenis flomiliae, fol. 1475, without 
the place of publication or the name of the 

This was followed by a Latin translation of 
the books against Ceisus, made by "Christ. 
Persona, Romanua," and printed at Rome by 
Herolt, 1581. The dedication to the Doge and 
Council of Venice, contains a spirited appeal to 
a war against the Turks. The book was re- 
printed at Venice in 1514. 

An edition of the Homilies on Genesis, Exodus, 
Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, and Judges, " Hiero- 
nymo intcrprete," was published by Aldus at 
Venice in 1503; another edition followed in 

The Commentary on the Romans, " Hieronymo 
interprete," was printed at Venice in 1506, and 
again in 1512. 

The Homilies on Canticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel, Matthew (16), Luke (6), John (2), with 
the books on Job and Canticles, were printed at 
Venice, 1513 (Panzer, x. 40 ; Maittaire, ii. 242). 

Meanwhile a collected [Latin] edition of the 
works of Origen had appeared. This was published 
at Paris by Jacques Merlin, doctor of the college 
of Navarre (t 1541), and dedicated to Michael 
[Boudet], bishop of Langres, " inter Francorum 
pares facile principi." The dedicatory letter, in 
which Origen is said to hold the same place 
among philosophical theologians (inter theosophos) 
" as the sun among the stars, or the eagle among 
birds," is dated 1512. 

The contents of the edition are as follows : — 
Part I. Dedicatory Letter; a general Index; 
the Homilies on Genesis (17), Exodus (13), 
Lcciticus (16), Numbers (28), on Joshua (26), 
Judges (9), 1 Kings (1). Part II. The Com- 
mentaries on Job (three books), on Psalm xxxvi. 
(Horn, v.), Ps. xxxviii. (Horn, ii.), on Canticles 
(Horn. ii. with a second, spurious, commentary), 
on Isaiah (Horn, ix.), on Jeremiah (Horn, xiv.), 
on Ezekiel (Horn. xiv.). Part III. Merlin's 
Apology for Origen; the Homilies on St. Mat- 
thew (35), on St. Lulie (39) ; Miscellaneous 
Homilies (10) ; the Commentary on the Epistle to 
the Romans (ten books) ; Jerome's notice of 
Origen (De Virr. HI.). Part IV. Trithemins's 
notice of Origen ; the Books against Ceisus (8) ; 
On Post Principles (four books) ; Laments. ; 

Pamphilus's Apology; Rufiinus On the falsifica- 
tion of Origen's Books; A Commendation of 
Origen, by Jo. Badius, the original publisher of 
the work. 

This edition was republished at Paris in 1519, 
1522, 1530, and at Venice in 1516 (Fabritios, 
Bibl. Graeea, vii. 235). 

The edition of Merlin was succeeded by that 
of Erasmus, who, at the time of his death (1536), 
was engaged upon an edition of Origen (Latin), 
which was issued by Beatns Rhenanus, and dedi- 
cated to Hermann, archbishop of Cologne, in the 
same year. 

The edition of Erasmus is more complete than 
that of Merlin ; as Erasmus translated into Latin 
the remains of the Greek commentary on Mat- 
thew, torn, xiii., xiv., xr., xvi, and added an in- 
teresting and characteristic criticism of Origen 
and his writings. This edition was reissued in 
1571 by J. J. Grynaeus, and dedicated to T. 
Erastus, with the addition of Ambr. Ferrarius's 
translation of the Commentaries on St. John, and 
L. Humfrey's Latin translation of The Dialogue 
against the Marcionites. 

For meanwhile two Latin translations of the 
Commentary on St. John had been published, 
the first by Ambrosius Ferrarius from a MS. in 
the library of St. Mark at Venice in 1551, and 
the second from a MS. of the Royal Library at 
Paris by Joachim Perionius, « about 1554 " 

An edition by G. Genebrard next appeared at 
Paris, 1574 (reprinted 1604, 1619; Fabricius, 
Bibl. Gr. 235), which contains Perionius's ver- 
sion of the Commentary on St. John, and a 
version of the Philocalia by Genebrard, and of 
the correspondence with Africanns by Hervetus. 

The first edition of any part of the Greek text 
of Origen was that of the beginning of the letter 
in reply to Julius Africanus, published by D. 
Hoeschel at Augsburg, 1602 (Fabricius, Bibl. 
Gr. 224). This was followed by an edition of 
the Books against Ceisus, together with the 
Oration of Gregory, published at Augsburg in 
1605 by the 6ame scholar.' These were followed 

' The book seems to have contained homilies of Ore- 
gory, Origen, and Leo, which were published separately 
or variously combined. 

i Among the Gale MSS. In the library of Trinity College, 
Cambridge, is a MS. of the PkiUxalia which had been 
prepared for publication by D. Hoeschel. It Is referred 
to by Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vii. 221, but the account is 
Inaccurate. The title-page and colophon are worth 
quoting: "Philocalia Origenis ex ejusscrlptlsconcinata 
variis a Basillo M. et Greg. Nazianzeno, ex codlce Cyprlo- 
descrlpta manu Graecae linguae studlosi, posits a re- 
gione Gilbert! Genebrardi Interpretatlone. Illoslrisaimo 
et generosissimo Dn. Henrico Uuottonio, serenlssiml et 
potentlssiml Regis Magnae Brltanniae apud Venetos Ora- 
tor!, fellcem ex Italia in Germanism gratuUtus reditum 
David Hoeschelfus A. 

" Opus boo Origenis oWkJoto* wtpucaXAlc nu mXv 
iwJieAit L. M. observantiae ergo D.D." 

It Is not easy to fix the date of the " return " from 
Italy. It probably was after Sir H. Wotton retired from 
his post at Venice in 1610. The Greek text has at the 
close : Prtd. Kon. Sept. 1606. The Latin text, which to 
written on the first side of the same page. Anno 1804, 
Nonis Septembris. 

On a fly-leaf is written : " Hoeschellus edldit llbroa 
Origenis contra Celsum cum suis annotationlbus in qui- 
bus saepe cltat bujus codicls verba quod ex eo quoque 
fecit Tarinus In notis ad PhllocalUm. 

•• In hoc nonnulla stint quae In libris contra Celsum 
non habentnr quae tamen lbi habere oportnlt. 

" Collatus est hlc codex cum alio Nov! Collegll apod 
Oxonlenses utl ooujiclo." 

Digitized by 



by the Philocalia, published by Jo. Tarinns in 
1618-9 (and again 1624). 

The Books against Celsus and the PMocalia 
were again revised and published at Cambridge 
in 1658 and 1677, by W. Spencer, Fellow of 
Trinity College. 

Meanwhile seven Homilies on Jeremiah had 
been published from a Vatican MS. by M. Ghisler, 
Lyons, 1629 ; and the whole collection of nineteen 
Homilies (under the name of Cyril Alex.), from 
a MS. of the Escurial, by B. Corderius, at Ant- 
werp, 1648 (Fabricius, B3A. Gr. vii. 214). To 
these was added the Exhortation to Martyrdom, 
published by J. R. Wetstein, Basle, 1674. 

Hitherto there had been no collected edition 
of Origen's Greek writings. The want had been 
long felt ; and as far back as 1635 the general 
assembly of French clergy had determined that 
editions of" John of Damascus, Origen, Maiimus, 
Ephraem Syrus, among the Greek Fathers," 
should be published, "to serve as authorities in 
controversies of religion." The work was com- 
mitted to Aubert, doctor of the Sorbonne. Col- 
lations of Italian (and so probably of other) MSS. 
were provided, which afterwards came into the 
hands of Tarinns (Huet, Praef.), but nothing more 
was done (Delarue, i. p. 5). 

The purpose however was taken np in other 
quarters. Herbert Thorndike (t 1672), Fellow 
of Trinity College, Cambridge, contemplated a 
complete edition of the works of Origen (Huet, 
Praef.), for which he made important collec- 
tions, still preserved in the library of his col- 
lege, including the Codex Holmiensis ; bat the 
plan was not carried ont. Probably Thorndike 
was deterred from executing it no less by the 
troubles of the times than by the knowledge 
that P. D. Huet, still a layman, but afterwards 
(1685) bishop of Avranches, was engaged upon 
a similar task. 

The work of Huet (Origehm in sacras Scrip- 
tvras Commentaria quaecunque Qraece reperiri 
potuerant, Rothomagi, 1668, 2 torn., republished 
at Paris, 1679, and at Cologne, 1685), dedicated 
in remarkable language to Louis XIV., is the 
foundation of the critical study of Origen. It 
is however only a part of the original design, 
which included three sections : — (1) the ifa- 
ytfruci ; (2) the treatises, avmiy/uiTa ; (3) the 
supposititious writings. Of the second and third 
parts nothing has been published. 

Tarinns refused to allow Huet to use the col- 
lations of Italian MSS. which were in his posses- 
sion, though he was through age unable to make 
any use of them himself (Huet, Praef.}. Huet 
had therefore to trust to a copy of the Cod. 
Holm-, which he had made in Sweden, and to Cod. 
Beg-, for his Greek text of the Commentary on 
St. Matthew ; and to the Cod. Beg., with Fer- 
rarius's Latin translation of the Cod. Venet., for 
the Commentary on St. John. 

Huet's collection of the 'EfiryirruecC does not 
include the fragments found in Catenae. He 
had originally intended to include these, bnt he 
abandoned the purpose, partly from the immen- 
sity of the work required for collecting them, 
and partly from the uncertainty which attaches 
to extracts often abridged, altered, and mis- 
named {Praef.). It is also greatly to be re- 
gretted that he did not reprint the old Latin 
version of the Commentaries of St. Matthew, 
which has a value of its own. Still, though 



his materials were imperfect and his work in- 
complete, Huet holds the first rank among the 
editors of Origen. 

An addition to the published Greek works 
of Origen was made by the appearance of the 
treatise On Prayer, which was edited at Oxford, 
1686, and republished, after the recension of 
R. D. Wetstein, at Amsterdam in 1694. These 
editions were followed in 1728 by a far more 
complete one of Reading, London 1728, enriched 
by the notes of R. Bentley (reprinted by Delarue, 
i. pp. 911 ff.). 

Bentley seems to have worked much at Origen. 
A copy of Huet in the library of Trinity College 
contains a collation of the Cod. Holm, of the 
Commentary on St. Matthew, and also of the 
Cod. Bodl. of the Commentary on St. John, in 
his handwriting, with many conjectures ; but I 
am not aware that he contemplated any edition 
of these writings. 11 

About the same time Th. Mangey (1684-1755), 
the editor of Philo(1742), was also engaged upon 
Origen ; and notes and collections of his are pre- 
served in the British Museum (MSS. Add. 6428). 

In the meanwhile the resolution of the French 
clergy found a tardy fulfilment through the 
labours of the great Benedictines of St. Maur. 
B. de Montfaucon edited the remains of the 
Hexapta in 1715 (Paris), carrying far forward the 
work of Flaminius Nobilius (Romae, 1587) and 
J. Drusius (Amhemiae, 1622). And the first 
two volumes of a complete edition of Origen 
(Oriqenis opera omnia quae Qraece vel Latins 
tantum extant et ejus nomine circumferuntur) ap- 
peared at Paris in 1733, under the editorship of 
Charles Delarue, a priest of the same society. 
(Tom. i. Letters, Treatises, with the spnrious 
Dialogue and the Philosophvmena. Tom. ii. 
Exegetical writings on the Old Testament as far 
as the Psalms, with the anonymous commentary 
on Job.) The work had been undertaken by the 
wish of Montfaucon, and these two volumes had 
been sent to the press as early as 1725 (t. iii. p. vii.). 
The work was dedicated to Pope Clement XII. 

The third volume (exegetical writings on the 
Old Testament from Proverbs, and on St. Matthew 
and St. Luke) appeared at Paris in 1740, a few 
months after the death of the editor (Oct. 1739), 
who left however the fourth volume, almost ready 
for the press as it was hoped, to the care of his 
nephew Charles Vincent Delarue, whom he bad 
invited to help him in his work. The fourth 
volume however proved to be in a most im- 
perfect state. For six years the younger Delarue 
was called away to complete Sabatier's Latin 
Bible, and he was not able to issue the fourth 
volume of the Origen till 1759 (remaining 
exegetical writings on the New Testament, with 
an appendix containing Pamphilus's Apology, Gre- 
gory's Panegyric, Huet's Origeniana, and selec- 
tions from Bull's Defensio). 
aV It would be most ungrateful not to acknow- 
ledge the service which the two Delarues ren- 
dered to Origen ; but their edition is very far 
from satisfying the requirements of scholarship. 
The collations of MSS. are fragmentary and even 
inaccurate. The text is left only partially re- 
vised. The notes are inadequate. 

h He and his friend J. Walker communicated to Dela- 
rue Grabe'a collections from English Catenae : Delarue, 
11. praef. L 

Digitized by 




But though this is so, the later editions of 
Origen's works have added very little to the 
completeness of the Benedictine edition. This 
is the more to be regretted, as large additions 
hare been made, and still can be made, to the 
Origenian fragments. In the appendix to the 
last volume of Galland's BibHotheoa, 1 published 
at Venice in 1781 after his death, there are given 
copious notes of Origen on Job, Psalms, St. 
Matthew, and St. Luke, and some notes on the 
Pentateuch, the historical books of the Old 
Testament, and Proverbs. 

Not less important are the additional notes 
from Catenae on the gospels of St. Matthew 
and St. Luke, the Acts, the Epistles to the 
Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, published by 
Cramer in his Catena (Oxford, 1840-1844), of 
which the notes on 1 Corinthians and Ephesians 
are of the highest importance. 

To these must be added the notes on Proverbs 
published by Mai (Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, 
Komae, 1854) from a Vatican MS., and some 
other fragments noticed under the heads of 
the different books. Many fragments also 
have yet to be collected from Catenae (e. g. 
that on Pent. Josh. Jud. B. M. Burn. 34, 35, 
saec. xv.) 

These materials have been either wholly 
neglected or only partially used in the latest 
editions of Origen; and the editors who came 
after the Delarues have done practically nothing 
to improve or illustrate the text of their author. 
The edition of Oberthiir (Wirceburgi, 1780-1794) 
is a simple reprint of the Greek and Latin texts of 
Delarue. The handy edition of Lommatzsch 
(Berlin, 1831-1848) promised much of the 
highest interest (i. Praef.), but the promises 
have been unfulfilled. The textual indices 
scattered through many volumes are complete 
and serviceable, but with this exception (to 
which Petermann's account of the Venetian MS. 
of the Commentary on St. Matthew may be added: 
iii. iv. Praef. \ the edition has no independent 
value. It contains none of the additional matter 
supplied by Galland and Cramer, but it gives 
the Philocatia which Delarue did not reprint.* 
Migne's reprint of Delarue, in his Patrologia 
(Paris, 1857) has the additions from Galland, 
most of the additions from Mai, and one frag- 
ment from Cramer as a supplement. 

Enough has been said to shew that there is as 
yet no edition of Origen worthy of the subject, 
and no complete collection of his writings in any 
shape. To prepare such an edition would be a 
work for a society of scholars and for a uni- 
versity press. [W., 1882.] 

OBIGENES (2), a layman, probably a 
professor of rhetoric, whose discourses and 
writings in defence of the truth during a time 
of persecution (which may be identified with 
the reign of Julian, when Christians were for- 

1 It may be worth while to notice that Galland was 
of French and not of Italian descent. In the license 
printed in his BMiothtca, he is described as Andrea 
o'alUmd, Prete deli' Oratorio. 

k As Lommatzsch most unaccountably does not give 
the pages of Delarue, it may be well to mention that on 
an average one page of Delarue is equal to one and six- 
sevenths of Lommfttiach. The respective Initial pages 
of the works are given above. 


bidden to teach secular literature) are highly 
commended by Basil, in a letter sent him by his 
sons, whose visit had caused him lively satisfac- 
tion. (Basil, Ep. 17 [384].) [E. V.] 

OBIGENES (8), Platonic philosopher (Diet 
G. # B. Biog. ; Tillem. iii. 283, 284). [C. H.] 

OEIGENIANI. Epiphanius, who makes 
the errors of the celebrated Origen the subject 
of the sixty-fourth section of his work on here- 
sies, describes in his sixty-third chapter heretics 
whom he calls Origeniani, to whom he gives for 
distinction the epithet airrxpoi ; for he professes 
ignorance from what Origen they derived their 
name. He attributes to them no doctrinal 
errors, unless we count under this head a state- 
ment that they had in circulation among them 
the apocryphal acts of Andrew ; but he states 
that though unmarried, and to outward appear- 
ance living the monastic life, they privately 
indulged in gross sexual impurity, only taking 
care to prevent a betrayal of it to the world 
through conception of children. Such a charge 
is easy to bring, but is difficult either to prove 
or to refute. Epiphanius states that these 
people themselves brought similar charges 
against the Catholics ; and he also tells a story 
how the like accusation had been brought after 
his death against a Palestinian bishop who had 
been in the number of the confessors; bat 
whether the charge was true or false Epiphanius 
will not venture to say. The theological ani- 
mosities of the time made men on both sides 
so ready to believe evil of each other, that 
the historical enquirer may now feel himself 
justified in charitably disregarding such stories 
on either side. There is no authority indepen- 
dent of Epiphanius for the existence of snch a 
sect of Origeniani ; and he himself appears only 
to know of them by hearsay, and to have had 
bnt very vague information concerning them. 
The most probable account of the matter seems 
to be that the people of whom Epiphanius had 
heard were called Origeniani because they really 
were doctrinal disciples of Origen ; and that a 
charge of immorality was brought against them 
by their opponents ; but whether they had done 
ot said anything to justify snch a charge, is a 
point on which we have no trustworthy evidence. 
See August. Eaer. § 63; Joan. Damasc. Haer. 42. 

[G. S.] 


I. — Controversy dubino Origen's Lite. 

We have already seen in the article on 
Origen, p. 100, that he was condemned at Alex- 
andria during his life ; the precise cause of the 
condemnation is less certain than the fact. Un- 
questionably, personal and formal irregularities 
entered largely into the complaint of Demetrius. 
Origen had preached at Caesarea, though not a 
priest himself, before an assembly of bishops 
and priests. He had accepted ordination in a 
foreign diocese without consulting his own 
bishop, as in duty bound ; and though disquali- 
fied by the law of the church on account of a 
youthful indiscretion. It is true that no doc- 
trinal charges are attributed to the time of this 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


censure, but it must not be forgotten that 
Origen had already written the irepl ifx&v and 
the arpa/ucTfis, embodying his characteristic 
doctrines; while there is no reason to suppose 
Demetrius to have been proof against the jenlous 
prejudice excited by the power and fame of an 
ecclesiastical subordinate. At any rate, he took 
action against Origen, convened a council of 
priests and bishops, and obtained a decree ex- 
pelling Origen from Alexandria, and forbidding 
him to reside or teach there, but leaving him 
his priesthood. Dissatisfied with these measures, 
Demetrius subsequently united with a few 
Egyptian bishops to deprive Origen of the 
priesthood also. Those who had voted with the 
bishop before now signed this new decree (cf. Pho- 
tius, cod. 118, avrnwoypafiivreey (ml rf iiroipaVei 
TsV ov/ofr^dnov almji ytyanifUyav).* 

To the account given above Hieronymus adds 
that Demetrius obtained a condemnation of 
Origen from Rome. (Ep. xxxiii.* Higne, P., 
vol. xxii. [Bened. xxix]). If this be so, though 
there is little evidence to support the view, it 
must have been from a synod under Pontianus 
in A.D. 231 or 233. Doellinger (Hippolytus and 
Callistta ; Eng. trans, pp. 244, foil., and p. 262) 
with Langen (KBmische Kirche, pp. 267, 268), 
connects this condemnation with Origen's conduct 
in the controversy between Hippolytus and Cal- 
listus. One fact is clear : that the condemnation, 
if, or by whomsoever pronounced, could have had 
little weight even at Alexandria itself, since the 
doctrines and the personality impugned found 
devoted admirers and champions among the 
highest religions authorities in the city, even 
when Origen had removed, leaving his work 

IX — Origen's Followers at Alexandria. 

(1) Heraclas, a pupil of Origen, succeeded 
his master at the catechetical school, and subse- 
quently Demetrius in the bishopric (Eusebius, 
H. E. vi. ; cc. 3, 15). He took no steps to effect 
his master's return, but we cannot therefore 
assume that he acquiesced in his condemnation. 
Doellinger (1. c. pp. 42-46) advocates the theory 
of a second expulsion by Heraclas, but the 
evidence of Oennadius (De Script. Eccl. c. 33) 
even when combined with the reference in a 
letter written three centuries later to a conncil 
at Alexandria (Mansi, vol. ix. p. 514), and one 
or two other vague illusions, is not of any real 
weight. The name of Heraclas was more 
famous than that of Demetrius, and the substi- 
tution might be easily made by careless or 
unscrupulous opponents. (2) Dionysius, who 
succeeded by similar steps to the bishopric of 
Alexandria (Euseb. H. E. vi. cc. 29, 30), shewed 
his fidelity to Origen by open sympathy with 
his master in misfortune (t'6. vi. 46), and by 
sorrow at his death. (Steph. Gobar in Photius, 
cod. 232.) A little while before Origen's death, 

• Huet (Orioeniana, 1, U. 15) stales that the bishops 
who bad voted with Origen at the first council were now 
compelled to sign the decree of Demetrius at the second. 
Bat in the phrase wti^n^iv avry, the word aimy refers 
to Demetrius, not to Origen, and the position of km. 
makes the meaning still more clear, vid. Migne, vol. 
xvil., p. 6«9, note (69). 

» Migne, Patrclogia Graeeo-Latina ; Migne, P. Palro- 
loffiae cuma eamfUtu*. 


Dionysius inscribed his De Martyrio to him, and 
in the controversy with the Chiliasts he defended 
Origen's allegorical system of interpretation 
against the literalism of Nepos (Euseb. H. E. 
vii. cc 24-25); and he with his master was 
claimed as an ally by the Arians through his 
use of the term frroVrcuru, and for his alleged 
subordination of the Son. Basil actually attacked 
him as an Arian (Photius, Cod. 232), while 
he was defended by Athanasius in the treatise 
which bears his name (Athan. De Sent. Dionysii 
de Synod, c. xxiv. cf De Decret. Syn. Nic c xxv. 
Migne, P. vol. xxv. pp. 479, foil. and515, foil.). (3) 
Theognostus, a celebrated teacher at Alexandria, 
wrote seven books, fororvrdatu, in imitation of 
Origen's wepl Apxuv, containing similar specula- 
tions with reference to the nature of the Son, 
the Holy Spirit, and angels (Photius, Cod. 106). 
On the third point his views were orthodox, on 
the second avowedly heretical ; his speculations 
on the third were only academical exercises 
(Athan. 1. c. Photius, «&.). (4) Another of 
Origen's followers at Alexandria was Pierius, a 
priest famous for his piety and learning. He 
was at the head of the Alexandrian school of 
his day, the teacher of Pamphilus, and the 
author of twelve books in which he taught the 
subordination of the Spirit to the Father and 
the Son, possibly also the pre-existence of the 
human soul. His devotion and resemblance to 
his great predecessor secured for him the title of 
the "Second Origen" (Hieron. De Vir. III. c. 
76, Photius, coo*. 119, and Scholia; Routh, Sell. 
Sacr. iii. p. 425). [Fragments of the writings 
of Pierius and Theognostus are to be found in 
Higne, vol. x. pp. 239-246.] 

III. — Controversy in Asia. 

At Alexandria, as we have seen, the influence 
of Origen still remained supreme, but elsewhere, 
within a short period after his death, his doctrines 
were vehemently attacked. Foremost among the 
assailants was Methodius, formerly of Olympus, 
bishop of Patara in the early part of the 4th 
century. Socrates, alluding to Origen's foes, 
gives him a place in the " Quaternion of Re- 
vilers " (rerpiiervs KtucaKAyur), but states that 
in the Mtimv he recanted (<V woAuwSfar), ex- 
pressing admiration for Origen (Socrat. H. E. 
vi. 13). Eusebius, as Walch points out (Ketz. 
vol. vii. p. 408. cf. Hieron. c. Buf. 1, § 11), 
inverts this order of events ; and the facts are 
quite uncertain, for we know neither the relative 
order of composition nor in whose mouth the 
recantation is placed. In dialogue Methodius 
would often state conflicting views, and in his 
other works such abusive expressions as J> 
xcWavpe are by no means rare when he refers 
to Origen.' The chief points that he attacked 
in the teaching of Origen were his views on the 
Creation, the relation of soul and body, Resur- 
rection, and Freewill ; but he also includes many 
subordinate elements in his hostile criticism. It 
often happens that Methodius, like many other 
critics of Origen, does not understand the prin- 
ciple which he attacks, and so bases the whole 
argument on.a false foundation. For instance. 

• Vlncenii (vol. v. app. 11. p. 88) supposes that 
Methodius was convinced of misconception by the 
apology of Pamphilus and Eusebius. 

Digitized by 



be impugns Origen's doctrine of eternal genera- 
tion. Origen bad argued that if the Creator's 
existence in time were prior to the creation, this 
would involve change in the unchangeable ; and 
that therefore the elementary interpretation of 
the Mosaic account was inadequate. Methodius 
replies that cessation from creation is change, 
and argues for the prior existence of the Creator 
on the analogy of the human sculptor and his 
handiwork, the statue. He does not apprehend 
that the term "creation " is an idea rather than 
an action ; Origen would reply that there is no 
cessation of creative activity as also there is no 
beginning, and that the work of the Great 
Renewer is not limited to moments of time. 
Methodius also attacks Origen's saying that the 
body is the fetter of the soul, and was added to 
it after the fall of man from innocence and 
purity ; that the clothes of our first parents 
(the " coats of skins ") were their mortal bodies, 
and that the soul is the only essential part of 
man (vid. Migne,vol.xviii. p. 267). Methodius 
asks how, if the sonl cannot sin without the body, 
the soul can have been sent into the body on 
account of sin; and if the body is a fetter, 
whether it is for the good or the evil? The 
good need no such restraint; and it does not 
check the evil, as we see in the case of Cain. 
In this same connection he also attacks Origen's 
doctrine of the Resurrection in a spiritual, not a 
material body, his allegorical interpretation of 
the " coats of skins," and his application of 
Ezekiel's prophetic promise (Photius, cod. 234. 
De Sesurr.). Methodius seems also to have 
written against Origen with reference to the 
witch of Endor, and his explanation of the 
raising of Samuel. Methodius supposed Origen 
to believe that the sonl of Samuel was in the 
power of Satan, and that the apparition was in 
reality the prophet's spirit. This theory may 
possibly have led to the charge of sorcery sub- 
sequently made against Origen, though the 
allegation was one which he shared with many 
other saints of pre-eminent learning. (De Py- 
thonissa ; ire pi tyyturTpiftiSov. Hieron. De Vir. 
III. lxxxiii.) Another point of attack was the 
doctrine, that while in doing evil our choice is 
free to act or to refrain from acting, in thinking 
-evil we are not free to admit or to repel tempta- 
tion (Photius, De lab. Arbit., cod. 236 cf. cod. 
234). From the reply of Pamphilus and Euse- 
bius it would appear that Methodius also im- 
pugned the orthodoxy of Origen in his conception 
of the Divine Nature. 

Antagonism intensified devotion ; the books 
under ban were studied with increased ardour ; 
nor did Origen's adherents allow the charges 
brought against their master to pass without 
challenge. Apologists were numerous (Photius, 
<xd. 118). Pierius and Theognostus, already 
mentioned among Origen's successors, and other 
teachers of equal note, took up his cause. But 
the first place among these treatises belongs to 
the apology composed by Pamphilus and Eusebius 
of Caesarea in the first decade of the 4th century, 
probably about A.D. 306. It was famous at the 
time, and nearly a century after its appearance 
it again became the subject of embittered con- 
troversy. Pamphilus had been a pupil of Pierius, 
but had subsequently removed to Caesarea, where 
he made his home, celebrated for sanctity, learn- 
ing, and devotion to Origen, whose commentaries 


he had transcribed and studied with incessant 
care (Euseb. H. E. vi. 32). Eusebius had been 
attracted to him by kindred sympathies, and the 
pair continued in an intimate and lifelong friend- 
ship. With regard to Origen they were of one 
mind, and together they prepared a defence of 
his character and doctrine. Pamphilus seems to 
have been the originator ; perhaps the first book 
was his sole work, but he was soon joined by 
Eusebius, and by the year a.d. 309, five books 
were completed and inscribed to Patermuthius 
and the confessors of Palestine — a dedication not 
inappropriate, seeing that part of the work had 
been composed in prison. After the death of 
Pamphilus in the persecution, Eusebius added a 
sixth book to the work, but of the whole only 
one book has come down to us, and that in the 
Latin translation of Rufinus (Photius, Cod. 118; 
Euseb. H. E. vi. 33 ; Soc. H. E., iii. 7 ; Hieron. De 
Vir. III. lxxxv.). This apology must have com- 
prised a general defence on the entire case, for 
though no doubt composed with special reference 
to Methodius, it also embraced the whole range 
of controversy, vindicating Origen's life (Euseb. 
1. c), discussing in the second book the validity 
of his irregular ordination (to. c. 36), and in the 
sixth the influence of his literary labours (to. c. 
36). Some of the charges advanced by Metho- 
dius are dealt with in the first book ; the 
question of freewill was discussed in one of the 
later books now lost to us. The apology opens 
with a general introduction setting forth the 
principles of Origen, and then proceeding to 
details, vindicates him by appealing to his own 
words to refute the misrepresentations of his 
traducers. Much of the treatise, therefore, 
consists of quotations. Its contents have been 
described and its authenticity established in 
a preceding article. [Eusebius op Caesarea 
(23), § 28. ] It is therefore only necessary to 
recapitulate the chief points on which issue 
was raised in Origen's behalf. The first set 
of charges refuted refers mainly to the Nature 
of the Divine Son. It is demonstrated that 
Origen believed (i) the Son to be of one sub- 
stance with the Father; (ii) not produced 
out of the substance of the Father by extension 
(" per prolationem," Tpoj3oAfj) according to the 
valentinian doctrine, which would divide and 
diminish the Divine substance ; (iii) that Christ 
was not a mere man, and (iv) that his life on 
earth was not allegorical and illusory ; (v) that 
there were not two Christ*, one in heaven the 
other on earth. Then after vindicating Origen's 
method of interpreting scripture, it shews (vi) 
that he does not falsify the sacred narrative 
by allegorical exegesis. Lastly, it deals with 
his doctrines concerning the nature and destiny 
of the human soul, asserting (vii) Origen's belief 
in the resurrection of the body, and (viii) in the 
future punishment of the impenitent; (ix) it 
maintains the soundness of his views as to the 
condition of departed souls ; and (x) that he does 
not teach that the souls of the wicked pass by 
transmigration into beasts. On essential prin- 
ciples, then, Origen's orthodoxy is asserted ; it is, 
however, conceded that where the voice of the 
church is silent, e.g., on the relations of body 
and soul, his speculations are open to question. 
But the distinction between speculation and 
doctrine is insisted upon, and it is shewn that 
these theories are broached only in scattered 

Digitized by 



references, not advanced in a systematic treatise. ' 
On one point of primary importance the apology 
is silent. While it attributes the outcry against 
Origen to envy, ignorance, and stupidity, it 
makes no reference to any formal condemnation 
or forfeiture of orthodox reputation during his 
lifetime. In this matter therefore it gives us 
no clue to unravel the facts of the case. [The 
remains of this Apology are contained in Migne, 
vol. x., pp. 1557 foil., and in Caillau, Coll. Eccl. 
Pat. vol. iv. pp. 497, foil.] By anticipation the 
rejoinder to this defence (Jmriporicii), published 
by Antipater of Bostra, about A.D. 460, may be 
here mentioned. Fragments of this work survive 
in the Acts of the Second Nicene Council (Labbe, 
Cone. vol. vii. p. 367). In the passage there 
preserved Eusebius is attacked, but no mention 
is made of Pamphilns. Antipater admits the 
historical learning of the former, but denies his 
knowledge of doctrine on the score of his hereti- 
cal tendencies. The doctrines of Origen to which 
he refers in the fragment are the pre-existence 
of souls, and the subordination of the Son. The 
treatise seems to have been accepted as an 
authoritative reply to Origenism, and to have 
been read by official command in churches. [In 
Migne, vol. lxxxv., pp. 1791 foil.] 

IV.— Controversy is the Arian Period. 

The Arian controversies of the 4th century 
roused a new storm against Origen. In the 
earlier part of the struggle indeed his name 
does not occur. The Arian party, though forti- 
fying themselves with the sanctity of the martyr 
Lucian, made no reference to Origen, nor was he 
cited by Alexander, their chief opponent before 
Nicies (Tillemont, vol. iii. p. 598 ; Soc. II. E. 
i vi. ; Huet, Origen., 2, 4. sec. 1, cc. 4-6 ; cf. 
Newman, Arians, i. tec 3). But the appeal was 
inevitable. Before long by champions of ortho- 
doxy he was denounced as " the Father of Arian- 
ian," while the Arians, catching the cue, shel- 
tered themselves under his authority as counte- 
nancing their doctrine of the Logos. Some even 
attempted to set him in the place of Arius as 
the rallying-point of the party (Soc. H. E. iv. 
26). On the other hand, Aetius, an Arian, in 
asserting the creation of the Son, attacks Origen 
together with Clement, as holding the orthodox 
position (Soc. H. E. ii. 35 ; Sozom. H. E. iv. 12). 
Suspicion, however, against Origen was aggra- 
vated by the character of his adherents. Diony- 
iios of Alexandria lay under a similar charge of 
heresy ; the sympathies of his apologist, Euse- 
bius, were notorious ; and Timotheus, a leader 
of the Arian party at Constantinople, in his 
devotion to the writings of Origen, was but a 
type of a numerous class (Soc. H. E. vii. 6). 
But while Origen's orthodoxy was impugned, 
his assailants exhibited the widest divergence of 
opinion as to the measure of his guilt. Eusta- 
thius of Antioch, a prominent opponent of the 
Arians, wrote a treatise against Origen, but only 
with reference to his interpretation of the story 
of the witch of Endor (De Engtatrimytho adv. 
Orig. Galland, Sibt. Pat. vol. iv. pp. 541 foil. ; 
Migne, vol. rviii. pp. 614-674). So that if 
Origen's views on the Trinity were really un- 
sound, it is strange that they should have 
escaped impeachment by so zealous a champion 
of orthodoxy (cf. Hieron. De Vir. IB. c. lxxxv). 
CHRIST, bioqr.— vou IV. 


Marcellus of Ancyra, on the other hand, in his 
reply to Asterius, to which Eusebius in turn 
rejoined, sets down Origen as the fountain-head 
of Arianism. The primary cause, however, of 
his antipathy, seems to be the admixture of 
pagan philosophy with Christian teaching to be 
found in the introduction of the ireol &px&v and 
elsewhere ; and Origen's most heinouB offence is 
not heresy, but his perverse union of Platonism 
and Christianity. On more vital errors he is 
strangely silent (Eusebius c. Marcellum ; Migne, 
xxiv. p. 754 foil., especially, p. 761). Hostility 
did not confine itself within these limits. Ori- 
gen's profound learning and ascetic morality 
excited the enthusiastic admiration of the culti- 
vated portion of the Egyptian monks (Epiph. 
Haer. lxiv. or xliv. ; Migne, vol. xli.), and racho- 
mius, the founder of Egyptian monasticism, and 
leader of the anthropomorphist party, forbade 
his monks to read Origen's writings. He is 
said to have ordered the books to be cast out 
of the monastery into the river (Boll. Acta 
Sane. Maii 14, vol. iii. p. 304, and App. xxv. 
p. 30), and the act would only be in keeping 
with the intense antipathy to Origen and his 
followers recorded by the biographer, who tells 
us that Pachomius was once visited by strangers, 
unsavoury even to an ascetic nose. The reason 
of their noisomeness [cWaSfa] was soon ex- 
plained by an angel, who informed Pachomius 
that he had been entertaining Origenists un- 
awares. The doctrines of that heretic in the 
heart were supposed to pollute the whole man 
from centre to skin ( Vita PachomU ; Boll. Acta 
Sane. Maii 3, Appen. 25, p. 53 ; cf. Doucin, p. 122 ; 
Tillemont, vii. pp. 206). Theodoras, his suc- 
cessor, seems to have been imbued with the same 
spirit. (Ep. de Vita Theodori, c. iii.) 

Origen, on his side, did not lack friends among 
the greatest and wisest men of the age. Atha- 
nasius was foremost in vindicating his orthodoxy 
against the Arians, maintaining the enormity of 
impnting to Origen as fundamental beliefs that 
which he wrote merely in the form of sugges- 
tion for those who go deeply into the mysteries 
of existence. So far from agreeing with the 
Arians, Origen's sympathies, he asserts, are with 
the orthodox. The Arians believe that the 
Word was created out of nothing ; Origen, that 
it was generated from the womb of uncreated 
light. They admit the Word to have existed 
before all ages, but not its eternity; Origen 
holds that it had no beginning but was coetenial 
(owatSos) with the Father. The Arians believed 
that the Word, like the rest of creation, was 
subject to change ; Origen, that it was essen- 
tially immutable. The doctrine of subordina- 
tion no doubt was a serious error, and Athanasius 
also combatted Origen's views about the nature 
of the soul and of sin ; but these failings could 
not in his mind destroy the holiness of that 
wonderful saint (Athanasius, De Decret. Syn. 
A'fc. xxvii. ; Ad Scrap, ep. iv. § 9 foil. ; Migne, 
P. vol. xxv. p. 466 ; vol. xxvi. p. 650 foil. cf. 
Doucin, pp. 110, 111). Basil also in his treatise 
on the Holy Spirit claims Origen as orthodox on 
this crucial doctrine (De Spiritu Sancto, Migne, 
vol. xxxii. p. 203, § 61 ; Benedict, edit. vol. 
iii. p. 61), and though he admitted errors in 
some portions of Origen's works, he edited with 
Gregory of Nazianzum the a)iAoK<fAia, a volume 
of extracts selected from Origen's treatises on 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 


important subjects (cf. Huet, Orig. II. iii. 6, 7 ; 
in Migne, vol. xvii. p. 1097). Gregory of 
Nyssa must also be included among his admirers 
and champions (Steph. (Job. in Photius, cod. 232 ; 
cf. cod. 233; Huet, Orig. II. iv. 1, §6; Migne, 
1. c. p. 1121). To this company must be added 
Didymus, the teacher of Hieronymus, who was 
to prove one of Origen's most bitter assailants. 
His sympathy, however, was imperfect ; and if 
we may accept the testimony of Hieronymus, 
not an impartial witness indeed, Didymus re- 
jected the teaching of Origen as to the nature 
of the Trinity, holding the doctrine himself in 
the most rigidly orthodox form (Hieron. adv. 
Bufin. 1. § 6; cf. iii. § 13; Migne, P., vol. 
xxiii. pp. 401 and 467). Didymus also wrote 
notes upon the vepl 4px™'i explaining apparent 
anomalies in an orthodox sense (Hieron. Ep. ad 
Pamm. lxxxir. § 4 [=Bened. 41]), a proceeding 
which commended itself to many who, in spite of 
general admiration, viewed with suspicion Ori- 
gen's extreme allegorical tendencies and the 
dubious passages in his great speculative treatises. 
While the controversy was still in this stage, 
Epiphanius, the venerable bishop of Cyprus, 
made his first appearance as an opponent of the 
Origenist party. His hostility was of no recent 
growth, for, while a monk in the Egyptian desert, 
he had allied himself to the party, of Pachomius. 
At this time his power and reputation made him 
the most formidable antagonist that the Ori- 
genists had yet encountered since the attack of 
Methodius. In three separate works Epiphanius 
assailed the doctrines of Origen and his adhe- 
rents, though his arguments had more vigour 
than novelty, recapitulating as they do the 
charges of his predecessor. (1) In bis " An- 
cKoratus," ' \y xipwros (A.D. 374), Epiphanius 
includes Origen in the list of heretics (§ 13), 
and sets down as obnoxious tenets (a) his alle- 
gorical account of creation and paradise (§§ 54-5) ; 
(6) the doctrine that in the resurrection not the 
natural body will be raised, but a body of finer 
material here contained within it (§ 55); (c) 
Origen's interpretation of the phrase " coats of 
skins " as representing the human body (§ 62) ; 
•(if) his subordination of the Son to the Father 
(§ 63). (2) In his great work against all 
heresies, Tavdpiov (A.D. 374-377), Epiphanius 
recurs to the attack, and in fuller detail, quoting 
Methodius at great length (Jtatr. lxiv. or xliii.).' 
All the charges previously made by Methodius 
are reiterated in this work, and some new ones 
added (c. xii. Migne, vol. xli. pp. 1067, foil.) He 
asserts (a) that Origen teaches that the Son does 
not see the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, nor 
angels the Spirit, nor men angels. (6) That 
though Origen derives the Son from the sub- 
stance (otV(a) of the Father, he believes Him to 
have been created and made, bearing the name 
of Son, not by right but by favour ; a direct 
encouragement to Arius (Ik rtirov 6 "Apitos 

p In Saer. lxili. (xliii.) Epiphanius meutioos under 
the head of OrigcnUU an Impure sect in Kgvpt, though 
he admits that be cannot tell whether they sprang from 
Origen himself or from some other heretic of bis name. 
The Impure morality characteristic of the sect shows 
that with the genuine Origcnlsts it can have no possible 
connection; though Doucin (p. 1*0) argues that men 
adopting Origen** conception of toe body as the prison 
of the soul would naturally Infer that Its vices were 
unimportant (cf. August. Dt Haer. 43, 43). 


t4j rptxpatrtu rfAtidw, c 4). (c) That Origen 
maintains the souls of men to have existed as 
celestial spirits before the bodies in which they 
were imprisoned to punish them for sin (Uao 
Kf KAirrcu to o~£pa tta to StSttrthu rj)v ^fixt* (" 
rf awpjrrt, c. xii.). (d) That Origen asserted 
Adam to have lost the Divine image at the Fall, 
and allegorised the xeruvts ttpudrtvot (t'6.). 
(e) That he mutilates and debases the doctrine 
of the resurrection ; for if the body does not 
rise, what will ? The soul is not in the grave (to.). 
(/) That by his allegorical method of interpret 
tation the sacred narrative is corrupted (ib.). 
(3) In his 'Avturs^aAaWt* (I. ii. 18; Migne, 
vol. xlii. p. 867) Epiphanius once again sums 
up bis case against Origen under four. heads: 
Resurrection ; the nature of the Son ; and of the 
Holy Spirit ; allegorical interpretation of Para- 
dise, Heaven, and all things ; also stating that 
Origen taught that the kingdom of Christ would 
have an end. (4) This last accusation is re- 
peated in an expanded form in a. letter to 
Johannes, bishop of Jerusalem (Migne, vol. xliii. 
p. 379, §§ 4, 5). Acoording to the writer, Ori- 
gen believed that the devil would be restored to 
his former glory and made equal with Christ. 
So that if Satan shall be subdued, reasons 
Epiphanius, Christ will be subdued in like 
manner. But this is an inference without logic 
or reason. The struggle during this period was, 
as we have seen, almost entirely confined to 
literary controversy, and its issues were deter- 
mined by the balance of conflicting personal 
authority, not by formal and authoritative 

In the next period the character of the con- 
troversy changes. Argument is enforced by 
action, and diplomatic intrigue becomes more 
potent than theological learning. We can trace 
three well-defined stages in the struggle. (1) 
The strife in Palestine between John of Jeru- 
salem and Rufinus on the one side, and Hierony- 
mus and Epiphanius on the other, Theophilus 
of Alexandria intervening. (2.) The personal 
quarrel between Hieronymus and Rufinus, aris- 
ing out of the tatter's translation of the npl 
dpx&y- (3.) The conflict between Theophilus of 
Alexandria and the Egyptian monks, leading to 
the controversy in which Chrysostom and Epi- 
phanius were involved, and to the council held 
near Constantinople, in the year A.D. 403. The 
details hare been given with such fulness in 
other articles that in many instances a mere 
reference may serve instead of repetition. 

(1) Strife in Palestine. 

Palestine, as we have already seen, had for 
long been a stronghold of the Origenistic party, 
and about the year 390 a.d. Origen's admirers 
in that country were powerful as well as 
numerous. John, the bishop of Jerusalem, had 
imbibed his doctrines among the devoted monks 
of the Kitrian desert, and the heads of the reli- 
gious communities at Bethlehem and on the 
Mount of Olives were imbued with the same 
spirit. At the former place Hieronymus and 
Paula respectively presided over the monastery 
and the convent; at the latter, Rufinus and 
Melania discharged the same functions; both 

Digitized by 



societies being bound together in close and inti- 
mate friendship. Up to this time Hieronymus, 
without accepting all Origen's speculations, had 
studied his works with the religious and literary 
fervour of an enlightened disciple. He had 
translated treatises, he habitually used the com- 
mentaries. Attachment to the master drew 
him to the followers, and when he fled from 
Some, though he visited Epiphanius, Origen's 
staunch opponent, he made his way to Isidorus 
at Alexandria, and listened to the lectures of 
Didymus. In a letter to Paula, written in 
385 A.D. he strenuously maintains the cause of 
Origen against his assailants, attributing their 
xeal not to orthodoxy but envy, and Origen's con- 
demnation to the supremacy of his learning and 
eloquence which meaner spirits could not brook. 
(" Pro sudore quid accepit pretii f damnatur a 
Demetrio episcopo. In damnationem eius con- 
sent it urbs Romana; ipsa contra hunc cogit 
senatum, non propter dogmatum novitatem, non 
propter haeresim, ut nunc adversus enm rabidi 
canes simulant ; sed quia gloriam eloquentiae 
eius et scientiae ferre non poterant, et illo 
dicente omnes muti putabantur." (Ep. xxxiii. ; 
[= Bened. 29.]) 

Dissension first arose with the arrival of the 
Egyptian monk Aterbius at Jerusalem in a.d. 
392, who attacked Hieronymus and Rufinus for 
their devotion to Origen. Hieronymus, always 
morbidly sensitive to any imputation of heresy, 
repudiated the charge. He subsequently as- 
serted that he had condemned the doctrines of 
Origen (** cam damnatione dogmatum Origenis 
sitisfecissem," c. Ruf. iii. 33); but this was 
probably an exaggeration, for when Vigilantins 
soon after reiterated the charge, Hieronymus 
asserted the right to discriminate between the 
true and the false elements in the great specula- 
tive system (Ep. lxi. [= Bened. 36]). Inwardly 
however he was wavering, and the arrival of his 
friend Epiphanins in a.d. 394, who appears to 
have undertaken to extirpate the Ongenistic 
heresy in Palestine, turned the scale, and Hiero- 
nymus at once appears as a partisan of ortho- 
doxy. Full details of the personal wrangle 
which ensued may be found elsewhere. [HiERO- 
It is clear that Epiphanius at the outset con- 
tented himself with general denunciation of 
Origenism, not singling out Rufinus and Johannes 
for special censure. On the other hand, the 
conduct of the Origenist party in the church 
during the discourse of Epiphanius, and the 
menacing demeanour of Johannes ; the warning 
that he sent to Epiphanius by his archdeacon, 
and his public attack upon anthropomorphic 
views in which the personal reference to Epi- 
phanius was unmistakable, made a rupture only 
a question of time, and antagonism was intensi- 
fied by a strenuous refusal twice repeated to 
condemn Origen and his doctrines. The subse- 
quent conduct of Epiphanius intensified the 
irritation. Having failed to convince Johannes 
by argument, he endeavoured to crush him by 
isolation. With this end in view, he first induced 
the monks at Bethlehem to exclude Johannes 
with Rufinus and his other friends from com- 
munion, and, secondly, consecrated at Eleuthero- 
polis Paalinianus, a brother of Hieronymus. 
Such conduct in an alien diocese was a serious 
encroachment upon the jurisdiction of the 


lawful bishop, and provoked indignant resent- 
ment.' 1 

The pleas put forward by the partisans of 
Epiphanius in self-defence were futile, not to 
say frivolous (cf. Hieronymus, Epist. c. Johann. 
Mtgne,P.vol.xxii.^p.82; [= Bened. 39]), and the 
apology only supplied material for new contro- 
versy. Hieronymus, who throughout the quarrel 
is a zealous partisan of the bishop of Cyprus, 
translated his defence into Latin : the version 
disappeared, and Hieronymus accused Rufinus 
with having suborned an agent to steal it. 
(Hieron. Ep. lvii. (= Bened. 33) ; c. Ruf. iii. 84.) 
Johannes meanwhile is silent, his controversial 
zest having abated ; but Epiphanius does not 
relax his efforts, and now writes the long letter 
to which allusion has already been made (Migne, 
vol. xliii. pp. 379, foil.), specifying the substance 
of his indictment of Origen. In answer to an 
appeal from Johannes, Theophilus of Alexandria, 
who was still an Origenist, makes an attempt 
to reconcile the disputants without success ; for 
Isidorus, to whom the mission was entrusted, 
according to Hieronymus, acted with dishonour- 
able partiality. (Hieron. c. Johann. §§ 87-39 ; 
c. Ruf. iii. § 18.) Johannes again writes to 
Theophilus, recounting the course of events, and 
the bishop of Alexandria takes advantage of a 
correspondence with Siricius of Rome to send on 
the letter with another from himself, charging 
Epiphanius with anthropomorphic heresy, not 
perhaps without reference to similar heretics in 
his own diocese. To this letter of Johannes, 
Hieronymus at once published an elaborate 
reply. (Ad Pammach. adv. Johann. Ep. lxxxiv. 
[= Bened. 41] cf. Palladius, de Vita Chrysoi. 
§ 16 j Tillemont, vol. xii. pp. 186, 187.) Before 
this Rufinus had made his peace with his former 
friend, a harmony not destined to be permanent. 
The terms of reconciliation are uncertain. The 
account given by Hieronymus would lead us to 
suppose that any concession made was on the 
part of Rufinus, but such evidence without dis- 
interested corroboration has little valne. (" Iun- 
ximus dextras, ut vos essetis Catholici, non ut 
essemus haeretici," e. Safin, iii. § 24 ; cf. § 33.) 
Probably, the friends agreed to differ on the 
question in dispute. This reconciliation Arche- 
laus, the governor of Palestine, endeavoured to 
extend to the other remaining foes, but his efforts 
were idle, the monks insisting upon the con- 
demnation of Origen as an indispensable pre- 
liminary to any agreement ("ut futurae con- 
cordiae fides iaceret fundamenta," Hieron. c. 
Johann. § 40). Theophilus in a subsequent 
attempt had better fortune. After he had turned 
against the Origenists, A.D. 397-399, he wrote 
to Epiphanius, entreating for the cessation of 
strife. The advance was accepted (Migne, P. Ep. 
lxxxii. in Hieronymus ; [= Bened. 39], and 
Theophilus went to Jerusalem aud restored 
communion between the city and Bethlehem, 
allying himself with Hieronymus throughout 
the remainder of the controversy. (Hieron. Epp. 
lxxxvi.-xcvi. ; = Bened. 59-63; 111; others 

4 Tbe two acts are really connected ; one Is a 
consequence of tbe other. TUlemont inverts the order, 
vol. xli., pp. 168, 170. Hieronymus did not officiate 
himself, and a priest was needed to keep up the services 
after the separation from Jerusalem. Cf. Vallarsl, 
Hieron 1. p. 95 ; In Migne, P. vol. xxH. p. 95. 

L 2 

Digitized by 




Before peace had been mndc between the 
hostile parties in Palestine, Rufinus had left the 
scene of strife and had returned to Rome, where 
he soon became embroiled in a new quarrel, 
trivial in itself, indeed, but important as lead- 
ing to a condemnation of Origen by a bishop of 
Rome. Without repeating all the history of 
the controversy given in other biographies 
[Hiebonyhus (4) ; Rufinus], we may record 
the main incidents. At the request of his 
friend Macarius, Rufinus translated first the 
famous apology of Pamphilus, — of which only 
the first book still survives,— and then the *<p\ 
ipx&y of Origen himself. In a preface to the 
former work he exhorted those who might look 
upon his conduct with suspicion to disregard all 
imputations of heresy, and to make the. know- 
ledge of truth their supreme concern. At the 
same time he explicitly affirmed his own belief 
in the Holy Trinity, and in the resurrection of 
the body. In an appendix he discussed the 
adulteration of Origen's works, contending that 
heretics, to support their own errors, had falsi- 
fied the text with interpolations. The intro- 
duction to the second treatise struck a bolder 
note. Rufinus reminds his readers that in under- 
taking such a translation he is but following 
the example of Hieronymus himself, who had 
translated more than seventy treatises of Origen, 
describing him as the greatest teacher of the 
church after the apostles. Furthermore, he had 
adopted the method of Hieronymus in explain- 
ing obscurities, amplifying too concise passages, 
illustrating di£culties by quotations from other 
works, and suppressing heterodox passages as 
dangerous or spurious. His task completed, 
Rufinus left Rome for Aquileia, provided with 
letters from Siricius, who died in the same year, 
A.p. 898. The two treatises he left behind to 
do their work at Rome. The friends of Hiero- 
nymus at once took up the challenge — for such 
it really was — and Pammacbius wrote to him 
from Rome, forwarding a copy of the translation 
and suggesting that Hieronymus should prepare 
a genuine version (Hieron. Ep. lxxxiii. Migne, 
= Bened. 40). Hieronymus replied, clearing 
himself of the charges, and stating, somewhat 
disingenuously, that be had never been an 
admirer of Origen, but had controverted his 
errors. He also denied the incriminated pas- 
sages in the works of Origen to be spurious 
interpolations, and impugned the genuineness of 
the apology attributed to Pamphilus. (Ep. lxxxiv. 
( = Bened. 41)). Finally, he recapitulates the 
heretical doctrines of Origen as set down by 
Kpiphanius, and adds that at Nicaea Origen had 
been by implication condemned as the forefather 
of Arianism. After an interval, Rufinus replied 
in his Apologia addressed to his friend Apol- 

The treatise is, in the main, a vindication of 
his personal faith and a retaliation upon 
Hieronymus. In the first book, he reasserts his 
own orthodoxy as to the fundamental doctrines 
of the Christian faith. He believes in the 
Trinity, but defends the statement which had 

' Not " Invecttvarum In Hleronymum libri duo," as 
the treatise bas been wrongly entitled. 


been misinterpreted, that the Son does not see 
the Father (" non videt "). The Son knowetb 
the Father, he admits ; but the Father is not 
visible to the eye of sense. He also professes 
his own faith in the Incarnation, the Atone- 
ment, the Resurrection of the body, adding with 
reference to this last doctrine that nt Aquileia, 
his home, the definite phrase " hutus carnis " 
was always used in place of the more common 
and vague expression. He then proceeds to ex- 
plain how he had been induced to publish the 
translation of Origen's treatise, insisting that 
he had carefully guarded himself against all 
responsibility for error, and defending the 
integrity of his method of dealing with the text 
of the original. In the second book, stung by 
the charge that he had perjured himself in his 
profession of faith, he retorts upon Hieronymus 
that he had violated an oath by reading pagan 
writers, and Porphyry in particular, after n 
solemn renunciation of all snch perilous erudi- 
tion. Advancing still further along the same 
lines, he shews the inconsistency of Hieronymus, 
who had extolled Origen for virtue and learning, 
reviling his foes with equal vehemence, and was 
himself as a commentator largely indebted to 
Origen, especially in his treatise on Micah. He 
then vindicates the Apology of Pamphilus, the 
character of which had been impugned by 
Hieronymus in the heat of controversy, and 
asserts the genuineness of the work. But even 
accepting the theory of Hieronymus, he still 
maintains that the essential force of the defence 
is not impaired; for it proceeds by appeal to. 
fact : every charge is refuted by Origen's own 
words. In conclusion, Rufinus leaves his oppo- 
nent in this dilemma ; that if Origen be con- 
demned, he cannot escape, but as a translator 
and imitator must stand or fall with his former 

This was but the beginning of strife. 
Through the influence of Marcella and other 
powerful friends of Hieronymus, Anastasins of 
Rome was drawn into the dispute. He was 
indeed entirely ignorant about Origen and hi» 
works, but recognised heresy in passages selected 
for his inspection. (Anastasius, Ep. ad Johann. 
in Ep. tt Dec., Migne, P., vol. xx., pp. 68, foil.) 
He summoned Rufinus to Rome in 399 a.d. 
Rufinus did not obey the citation, but excused 
himself by letter, adding a new profession of 
orthodoxy and disclaiming any responsibility 
for the views of Origen. Dissatisfied with this 
reply, Anastasius proceeded to condemn Origen, 
and though not explicitly condemning Rufinus 
as well, he expresses his disapproval in the 
strongest terms. (" Nee dissimilis reo est qni 
alienis vitiis praestat assensum, illud tamen te 
cupio ita haberi a nostris partibus alienum, nt 
quod agat (sc. Rufinus) et ubi sit, nescire 
cupiamns, ipse denique viderit ubi possit 
absolvi." Anasta. ad Johann. vid. snp.) It has 
been alleged that other bishops joined in this 
condemnation, but the statement has little 
evidence to support it. Anastasius indeed in 
a letter to Simplicianus of Milan expresses a 
desire to unite with Theophilus in condemning 
the heretical doctrines of Origen, and asserts 
that " we established in the city of Rome " (not 
in urbe Roma positi) do condemn anything con- 
trary to faith found in the worki of Origen ; 
explaining that a priest, Eusebius oy name, had 

Digitized by 



pointed out 'the blasphemous chapters, which, 
with any other (similar?) things set forth by 
Origen, had been condemned. Now " we " may 
or may not refer to other bishops ; it is far more 
probable that the plural is used in an official 
sense. (Hieron. Ep. xcxv. Migne, P., vol. xxii., 
p. 772, cf. toI. xx. p. 74.) At any rate it is 
certain that the condemnation did not take 
place at a formal synod, for only one such 
-council was held at Rome during the pontificate 
of Anastasius — the synod convened against the 
Donatists in a.d. 400~ (Mansi, vol. iii. pp. 1023, 
1024, cf. Binius on a Carthaginian synod, ib. 
pp. 1023, 1024). After Anastasius had con- 
demned Origen, the Emperor Honorius forbade 
his works to be read. (Hieron. ad Pammach. et 
Marc. Ep. xcvii. ; Ad Theoph. Ep. lxxxviii. cf. 
Baronius, ad ann. 400, nn. 33-35 ; ad ann. 402, 
o. 29. Schroeckh, x. p. 194.) It is probable 
that several letters passed between Rome and 
the eastern churches with a view of securing a 
more general concurrence in the decision of 
Anastasius; how for the attempt succeeded 
cannot be determined. (Hieron. c. JRufin. iii. 
i 20, foil. Coustant, Epp. Pont. Roman, pp. 714, 
719, 724. Migne, P., vol. xx. p. 58, foil, 
(iv.) to Veneriug of Milan, condemning Origen's 
works, I.e. p. 59 ; (ix.) c. Ruf. in Orient, ib. 
p. 62; and Ep. lxxxviii. ref.) Hieronymus 
exhorts Rulinus to acquiesce in this verdict, 
"et duos (sc Theophilum et Anastasium) 
«rientis atque occidentis TpoxauHpipovs alncri 
seqoamur incessu." (c Rufin. iii. § 9.) The 
succeeding stages of the personal conflict are 
not essential to our immediate subject, and may 
therefore be ignored. The condemnation of 
Origen by Anastasius was the important result 
of the quarrel ; it must certainly be accepted 
as a fact, and Rulinus in his reply to Hieronymus 
was not justified in discrediting it. (Cf. c. Ruf. 
iii. § 20.) The thorough ignorance of Anasta- 
sius is palpable, and his intervention was due 
to the influence of the partisans of Hieronymus 
and Epiphauius. The latter was the lending 
spirit in the movement. It is from him that 
Hieronymus adopts all his charges against 
Origen, for only one has even the semblance of 
originality, when in discussing the pre-existence 
of the soul, Hieronymus asks whether the 
human soul of Christ pre-existed before the 
Incarnation of the Divine Logos. If it did, 
then Christ must have had two souls, he argues, 
and so proceeds to attack Origen's interpretation 
of Philipp. ii. 5 (cf. Langen, Romische Kircke, 
pp. 649-663). All these charges are repeated 
in a letter to Avitus, dealing with the heresies 
«f the ™pl Apx""- [Ep- exxiv. (= Benev. 94.)] 

<3) Theopoilus asd the Egyptian Monks. 

While this controversy was in progress, the 
ttate of affairs at Alexandria had been trans- 
formed. Theophilus, who had made himself 
conspicuous by his antagonism to Epiphanius 
and his partisans in Egypt, bad now changed 
sides, abandoning Isidorus with the "Tall 
Brethren " and his other allies among the monks 
of the Origenist faction. [lsiDOBVS (28). 
DioaooRDs (4). Ajntomus (1). Eothyicius 
<3> Ecsemos (117).] A passage in his 
Easter letter of A.D. 399 had roused a storm of 
passion among the adherents of the anthropo- 


morphist party. They had gathered in great 
force, and threatened the bishop with instant 
vengeance. In his alarm he evaded their anger 
by equivocation. " In seeing you," he said, " I 
see the face of God " [ovras i/taj tttov &t 6«o0 
TpdVvaw] ; implying bis belief in the corporeal 
nature of the Deity ; at their demand he also 
disclaimed all sympathy with Origen and his 
doctrines. (Gennndius, De Script. Eccl. xxxiii. 
Migue, P., vol. 58. Soc. II. E. vi. 7. Sozom. 
H. E. viii. 11.) About the same time, Isidorus, 
whom Theophilus had put forward as a rival 
claimant against Chrysostom for the throne of 
Constantinople, quarrelled with his patron, 
unable any longer to brook his avarice and 
tyranny. (Isidorus of Pelusium, i. 152, 310, 
ed. Conimel. 1605.) Theophilus sought unsuc- 
cessfully to retaliate by a false accusation. The 
monks of the Origenist party took sides against 
the bishop, and he in his rage made their 
religious views a weapon against them. (Theo- 
philus, in Hieron. Ep. xcii. § 3. Sozom. H. E. 
viii. 12.) Theophilus first convened a synod at 
Alexandria, probably in A.D. 400, at which 
Origen and his books were formally condemned, 
not without resistance, if it is to this incident 
that Sulpicius Severus refers in his account of 
the shameful strife at Alexandria over the books 
and opinions of Origen. (Dial. i. 6, Galland, 
Bibl. viii. p. 404.) Theophilus next wrote to 
Anastasius (Hieron. c. Rufin. ii. § 22) and also 
addressed to the bishops of Cyprus and Pales- 
tine a letter preserved in the translation of 
Hieronymus, exhorting them to join in the 
crusade. Justinian in his letter to Mennos 
quotes a fragment of another epistle written 
by Theophilus, either from this synod or from 
another held about the same time at Alexandria 
or in the Nitrn. It attacks Origen for heresy 
with regard to the pre-existence and fall of 
souls, and mentions Heraclas, wrongly as we 
have seen, as the bishop who expelled him from 
Alexandria. (Mansi, Cone. vol. iii. p. 973, foil.) 

As a result of this appal a synod was held 
at Jerusalem, and from it a reply was sent to 
Theophilus acquiescing in the condemnation of 
the heresies which he had mentioned, but stating 
that several of those doctrines were not known 
in Palestine (Mansi, vol. iii. p. 989 ; Supp. vol. 
i. p. 271). Another synod was held in Cyprus, 
and Epiphanius, at the request of Theophilus 
his old antagonist, united with him in putting 
Origen's works under a ban (Mansi, vol. iii. 
p. 1020, 1022 ; Hieron. Epp. xc. xci. xcii. ; Soc. 
II. E. vi. 10 ; Sozom. II. E. viii. 14). Chryso- 
stom was proof against all pressure.' 

The most important counts of the indictment 
brought against the Origenists by Theophilus 
are contained in the circular letter to the 
bishops of Palestine and Cyprus mentioned above, 
and in his Easter letters of a.d. 401, 402, and 
404 ; all of which are preserved in the transla- 
tions of Hieronymus (Epp. xcii. xcvi. xcviii. c). 
Gennadi us also mentions a large treatise (" ununi 
et grande volumen ") composed by Theophilus 
against the Origenists (De Script. Eccl. xxxiii. in 

• Mansi, II. c., sets these synods In 3»9, aj>„ agreeing 
with Walcb (Kirchtnvtrtam. p. 346), and Baronius 
ad. ann.; Pagl, In 401, a.d.; ad ann. n. 2, foil. cf. 
Hefele, Council!, vol. 11. } 112, Migne, Diet. Cone., vol. I, 
pp. 83-85. 

Digitized by VjOOQ IC 



Migne, vol. lviii. pp. 1077, 1078) ; and Cyril of 
Alexandria a discoane ; bat both are lost. 

In the synodal letter Theophilus first enume- 
rates the heretical doctrines of the xtpl ipx&r, 
viz. (a) It is true that the Son is similar to us, 
but false that He is similar to the Father, (b) 
He is as inferior to the Father as Peter and Paul 
are inferior to Him. (c) The kingdom of Christ 
mil have an end. (d) The deril will at some 
future time be purified from evil, and will with 
Christ be made subject to some other power. 
The next heretical doctrine (e) that we must not 
pray to the Son either alone or with the Father, is 
taken from the Book of Prayer (rtpl fuxys). 
The sources of the rest are not stated : they are 
as follows : (f) The body of the Resurrection 
will be not only material but mortal, and in 
the course of ages it will vanish into thin air. 
(g) The angels were not originally created in 
different orders for different service, but were 
higher spirits fallen in different degrees from 
their several estates (" diversis lapsibus et 
minis "). (h) The Israelites sacrificed to angels 
as the heathen to demons, (i) That Origcn 
attributes to the heavenly bodies a fore-know- 
ledge of events which the devil will bring 
about, thus approving of heathen astrology, 
(j) That Origen permitted and practised the use 
of magic, (k) That he denied that the Son of 
God became man, interpreting Philippians ii. 7, 
not of the Divine Word but of the human soul 
of Christ which came down from above. (1) 
That Christ will at some future time suffer for 
the redemption of the devil as he has already 
suffered for the redemption of man (Hieron. Ep. 
zcii. § 24). In the first Easter Letter (Hieron. 
Ep. xcvi.) of a.d. 401 , Theophilus repeats seve- 
ral of the charges enumerated above. Thus (c) 
is repeated in §§ 5-7 ; (d) in § 8 ; (e) in § 14 ; 
(0 in §§ 9, 13, 15 ; 0) >n § 16 ; and (1) in §§ 10, 
11. Theophilus also combats the theory that 
the terrestrial system is merely the product of 
sin among the higher orders, that matter is in 
itself evil and vain, and that the soul was sent 
down to earth in punishment for sin in a pre- 
vious existence (§§ 17-19). Theophilus adds as 
a result of this degradation of matter that the 
Origenists dishonour the honourable estate of 
matrimony (§ 18); but it is possible that for 
his own purpose he here identifies them with the 
impure sect mentioned by Epiphanius. The 
second Easter Letter A.D. 402 (Hieron. Ep. 
xcviii.) is still more vehement. With general 
abuse of Origen, whom it styles " the hydra of 
all heresies " (" hydram omnium haercseon ") it 
combines several new statements of old charges. 
The points assailed are as follows : (i.) Origen's 
misuse of allegory. By allegorical shadows and 
empty images he robs Scripture of its truth 
(§ 10). (ii.) That through the fall of spirits 
from heaven God was compelled to create bodies 
to contain them, and that the terrestrial system 
is thus the outcome of sin (§ 10). (iii.) That 
man dies many times, soul and body undergoing 
incessant transformation by union or separation 
(i.e. a doctrine of /ier<pil'vxv< r 'f >n a modified 
form) (§ 11). (iv.) That angels were made 
principalities and powers according to merit 
ofter the fall of the devil (§ 12). (v.) That 
the operation of the Spirit does not extend to 
inanimate and irrational beings. This Theo- 
philus controverts by the ordinances of Baptism 

and the Eucharist, for the efficacy of which con- 
sciousness is not essential (§ 13). (vi.) The 
distinction between the human and the divine 
soul of Christ. By this false doctrine, says 
Theophilus, Origen destroys the universal faith 
(§ 14). (vii.) That ravt, i.e. the higher intel- 
ligence, was corrupted to il/oxf Of^X*** *- T - *•) 
because it had lost the fervour of divine love 
(§ 15). (viii.) That as the Father and the Son 
are one, so the Son and the soul which H» 
assumed are one (§ 16). (ix.) That God created 
only so many rational creatures as He could 
govern, conceive, keep in subjection, and rule 
by providence (§ 18). The third Easter Letter 
(a.d. 404, Hieron. Ep. c.) only repeats charges 
already mentioned. 

Theophilus. meanwhile had enforced his argu- 
ments by more active measures. In a.d. 400, 
he proceeded through the Nitrian desert, de- 
nouncing the Origenist party and arming their 
foes to attack them. More than three hundred 
monks were driven into exile, among them the 
'■ Tall Brethren," who finally took refuge with 
about fifty companions at Constantinople (Soc. 
H. E. vi. cc. 7, 9 ; Soxom. H. E. viii. cc. 12, 13). 
Chrysostom, the bishop, though not admitting 
the fugitives into full communion, entertained 
them hospitably, and interceded with Theophilus 
in their behalf. The latter, acting either on 
false information or in eagerness to revenge his 
former disappointment, at once sent emissaries 
to Constantinople to accuse Chrysostom of 
having illegally admitted excommunicated 
monks to communion (A.D. 401). In the mean- 
time the complaints of the monks had reached 
the emperor, Arcadins, and he summoned Theo- 
philus to appear in his own defence. Unwilling 
to obey the summons in person, the bishop de- 
ferred his coming, but arranged that Epiphanius 
should go on in advance and use his great in-