Skip to main content

Full text of "A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines: Being a Continuation of ..."

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 maiginalia 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 tliis resource, we liave 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 fivm 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 attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming 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 liabili^ 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 |http: //books .google .com/I 













J3 :i-0 

'^ / 

' ' L i- ; . 


Cantbrid^ : 
Prtssrvork by John Wilson 6» Son. 





H. T. A. Bev. Hesry Thomas Armfield, M.A., F.S.A., 

Vice-Principal of the Theological College, Salisbury. 

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

Formerly of Chiibt Church, Oxford. 

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

Disney Professor of Archaeology in the University of 
Csjnbridge ; Rector of Cockfield, Suffolk ; formerly 
Fellow of St. John's CoU^e. 

H. B — Y. Rev. Henry Bailey, D.D., 

Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury, and 
Honorary Canon of Canterbury Cathedral; formerly 
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 

J. B — Y. Bev. Jambs Barmby, B.D., 

Vicar of Pittington ; formerly Fellow of Magdalen College, 
Oxford, and Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall, 

A. B. Bev. Alfred Barry, D.D., 

Principal of King*8 College, London, and Canon of 

E. W. B. Rev. Edward White Benson, D.D., 

Chancellor of Lincoln Cathedral ; formerly Fellow of 
Trinity College, Cambridge, and Master of Wellington 

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

Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

C. W. B. Rev. Charlhs William Boase, M.A., 

Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 

n. B. Henry Bradshaw, M.A., 
v-a Diet. Biog.) Fellow of King's College, Cambridge ; Librarian of the 

University of Cambridge. 

W. B. Rev. William Bright, D.D., 

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

n. B. The late Rev. Henry Browne, M.A., 
{ lo iJict. Ani.) Vicar of Pevensey, and Prebendary of Chichester Cathedral. 

L B. IsAMBABD Brunkl, D.C.L., 

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

J. B. Jambs Bryce, D.C.L., 

Of Lincoln*8 Inn; Hegius Professor of Civil Law in the 
University of Oxford. 



T. R. B. Thomas Ryburn Buchanan, M.A., 

Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. 

D. B. Rev. Daniel Butler, M.A., 

Rector of Thwing, Yorkshire. 

J. M. C. Rev. John Moore Capes, M.A., 

of Balliol College, Oxford. 

J. Q. C. Rev. John Gibson Cazenove, D.D., P.R.S.B., 

Diocesan Chaplain, Edinburgh; formerly Provost < 
Cumbrae College, N.B. 

C. Rev. Samuel Cheetham, M.A., 

Professor of Pastoral Theology in King's College, Londoi 
and Chaplain of Dulwich College ; formerly Fellow < 
Christ's College, Cambridge. 

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

Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Cambridg 
Fellow of Corpus Christi Collie. 

M. B. C. Rev. Maurice Byles Cowell, M.A., 

Vicar of Ash-Bocking. 

J. LI. D. Rev. John Llewelyn Davies, M.A., 

Rector of Christchurch, St. Marylebone ; formerly Fello 
of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

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

Secretary to the Central African Mission; former! 
Chaplain of Christchurch, Oxford, and Vicar < 
St. Mary Magdalene, Oxford. 

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

Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow. 

S. J. B. Rev. Samuel John Eales, M.A., 

Principal of St. Boniface, Warminster; formerly Het 
Master of the Grammar School, Halstead, Essex. 

J. E. Rev. John Ellerton, M.A., 

Rector of Barnes, Surrey. 

C. J. E. Rev. C. J. Elliott, MA., 

Vicar of Winkfield, Windsor ; formerly Crosse ai 
Tyrwhitt Scholar in the University of Cambridge. 

E. S. Ff. Rev. Edmund Salusbury Ffoulkes, 

Rector of Wigginton ; Examiner in the Honour Scho 
of Theology, Select Preacher, and formerly Fellc 
and Tutor of Jesus College, Oxford. 

A. P. F. The late Right Rev. Alexander Penrose Forbes, D.C.L., 

Bishop of Brechin. 

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

Rector of St. Mary*s, Marylebone, and Chaplain to t 
Archbishop of Canterbury; formerly Fellow of A 
Souls College, Oxford. 

J. M. F. Rev. John Mek Fuller, M.A., 

Vicar of Bexley ; formerly Fellow of St. John's Colleg 



J. G. Bev. James Gammack, M.A., 

The Parsonage, Dnimlithie, Fordonn, N.B. 

B. G. Bev. Richard Gibbimgs, D.D., 

Professor of Ecclesiastical Histoiy in tlie UniTersitj of 

Bev. Christian D. Ginsburo, LL.D., 
Binfield, Bracknell, Berks. 

The late Rev. William Frederick Greenfield, M.A., 
Master of the Lower School, Dulwioh College. 

The late Rev. Arthur West Haddan, B.D., 

Rector of Barton-i»n-the- Heath ; Hon. Canon of Worcester ; 
sometime Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. 

Rev. Edwin Hatch, M.A., 

Vice-Principal of St Mary Hall, Oxford. 

Rev. Edwards Comerford Hawkins, M.A., 

Head Master of St. John's Foundation School, Leatherhead. 

Rev. Lewis Hensley, M.A., 

Vicar of Hitchin, Herts ; formerly Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 

Rev. Charles Hole, B.A., 

Camberwell ; formerly Rector of Loxbear. 

Rev. Henry Scott Holland, M.A., 

Senior Student and I'utor of Christchurch, Oxford. 

Rev. Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D., 

Fellow and Divinity Lecturer of Emmanuel College, 
Cambridge ; Chaplain to the Bishop of Winchester. 

Rev. Henry John Hotham, M.A., 

Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

John Hullah. LL.D., 

Honorary Fellow of King*s College, London. 

Rev. William Jackson, M.A., F.S.A., F.R.A.S., 

Formerly Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford ; Bampton 
I..ecturer for 1876. 

Rev. George Andrew Jacob, D.D., 

Formerly Head Master of Christ^s Hospital, London. 

Rev. David Rice Jones, 

Rev. William James Josling, M.A., 

Rector of Moulton, Suffolk ; formerly Fellow of Christ's 
College, Cambridge. 

L. Rev. Joseph Barber Liohtfoot, D.D., 

Canon of St. Paul's ; Lady Margaret's Professor of 
Divinity in the University of Cambridge; Honorary 
Fellow of Trinity College. 

R. A. L. Richard Adllbert Lipsius, D.D., 

Professor of Divinity in the University of Jena. 

n 2 





. F. 




. H. 









H. 8. 





















J. M. L. John Maloom Ludlow, 

Of Lincoln's Inn. 

J. R. L. Rev. John Robert Lunn, BJ)., 

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

J. H. L. Rev Joseph Hirst Lupton, M.A., 

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

G. F. M. Rev. Georoe Fredkrick Maclear, D.D., # 

Head Master of King's College School, London. 

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

Vicar of Trumpington ; formerly Fellow of Trinity College, 

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

Formerly of Etoa College, and sometime Fellow of Exeter 

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

Formerly Chaplain to the Forces, Dublin. 

F. M. Rev. Frederick Metriok, 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. WiLUAM MiLLIGAN, D.D., 

Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the 
University of Abe^een. 

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

Rector of Duntesboume Rous, near Cirencester ; Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Salisbury ; formerly Fellow 
of Corpus Christi Collie, Oxford. 

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

Rector of Drayton, Nuneaton. 

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

Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

J. B. M. John Rickards Mozley, M.A., 

Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. 

J. B. M. J. Bass Mullinqer, M.A., 

St. John's College, Cambridge. 

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

Oldlands, Uckfield. 

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

Rector of Upper Sapey, Herefordshire. 

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

Vicar of Ferring, Sussex, and Rural Dean ; formerly 
Vice-Principal of the Theological College, Chichester. 

W.G.F.P. Walter G. F. Phillimore, D.C.L., 

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



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

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

E, H. P. Rev. Edward Hates Plumffre, D.D., 

(sometimes Professor of New Testament Exegesis in King*s College, 
P.) London ; Prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral ; Vicar of 

Bickley; formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. 

Db Prbssens^. Rev. E. Db Pressense, 

Of Paris. 

J. R. Rev. James Haine, M.A., 

Canon of York ; formerly Fellow of the University of 

W. R. Very Rev. William Reevbs, D.D., 

Dean of Armagh. 

G. S. Rev. George Salmon, D.D., 

Regius Professor of Divinity, Trinity College, Dublin. 

P. S. Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., 

Bible House, New York. 

F. H. S. Rev. Fredhiick Henry Scrivener, M.A., LL.D., 

Rector of Hendon, Middlesex. 

W. E. S. Rev. WiLUAM Edward Scudamore, M.A., 

Rector of Ditchin^bam ; formerly Fellow of St. John's 
College, Cambridge. 

J. S. Rev. John Sharps, M.A., 

Rector of Gissing, Norfolk ; formerly Fellow of Christ's 
College, Cambridge. 

B. S. Benjamin Shaw, M.A., 

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

W. M. S. Rev. William Macdonald Sinclair, M.A., 

Assistant Minister of Quebec Chapel ; formerly Scholar of 
Balliol College, Oxford. 

R. S. Rev. Robert Sinkek, M.A., 

Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

I. G. S. Rev. Isaac Gregory Smith, M.A., 

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

A. P. S, Very Rev. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D.D., 

Dean of Westminster. 

W. S. Rev. William Stewart, D.D., 

Profejssor of Biblical Criticism in the University of 

J. S — T. John Stuart, LL.D., 

Of the (General Register House, Edinburgh. 



8. ' Rev. William Stubbs, M.A., 

Begins Professor of Modem History in the University o 
Oxford ; Fellow of Oriel College. 

C. A. S. Bev. CHARLra Anthony Swainson, D.D., 

Norrisian Professor of Divinity in the University o 
Cambridge ; Canon of Chichester Cathedral ; formerl; 
Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. 

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

Fellow and Divinity Lecturer of Gonville and Cain 
College, Cambridge. 

E. S. T. Bev. Edward Stitart Talbot, M.A., 

Warden of Keble College, Oxford. 

B. St. J. T. Bev. Bichard St. John Tyrwhitt, M.A., 

Formerly Student and Bhetoric Beador of Christchurcl 

E. V. Bev. Edmund Vknables M.A., 

Canon Besidentiary and Precentor of Lincoln Cathedral 
Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 

H. W. Bev. Henry Wage, M.A., 

Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn, and Professor of Ecclesiastica 
History in King's College, London. 

B. F. W. Bev. Brooke Foss Wksfcott, D.D., 

or W. Canon of Peterborough ; Begins Professor of Divinity ii 

the University of Cambridge; formerly Fellow o 
Trinity College. 

Q. W. Bev. George Williams, B.D., 

Vicar of Bingwood ; Hon. Canon of Winchester ; formerl; 
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. 

C. W. Bev. Christophkr Wordsworth, M.A., 

Fellow of Peterhouse, and formerly Scholar of Trinit; 
College, Cambridge. 

J. W. Bev. John Wordsworth, M.A., 

Prebendary of Lincoln ; Examining Chaplain to th 
Bishop of Lincoln; formerly Fellow of Brasenos 
College, Oxford. 

W. A. W. William Aldis Wright, M.A., 

Trinity College, Cambridge. 

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

Assistant Master in Harrow School ; Fellow of Trinit 
College, Cambridge. 

H. W, Y. Bev. Henry William Yui,e, B.C.L., M.A., 

Beotor of Shipton-on-Cherwell and Yioar of Hampton Ga} 


This Work is designed to famish, in the form of a Biographical 
Dictionary, a complete collection of materials for the History of the 
Christian Church from the time of the Apostles to the age of 
Charlemagne, in every branch of this great subject except that of 
Christian Antiquities. Those Antiquities have been treated in a sepa- 
rate Work,* and the two Dictionaries are to be regarded as forming 
parts of one comprehensive Cyclopaedia of Ecclesiastical History 
for the first eight centuries of the Christian Era. The present 
Work, like its companion, commences at the period at which the 
Dictionary of the Bible leaves off, and forms a continuation of it ; 
and it ceases at the age of Charlemagne, because the reign of 
that monarch forms a recognised link between ancient and modem 
times. The Biography and Literature of the Ages that followed, 
DO less than their Institutions, Arts, and Customs, afford abundant 
matter for a separate book. 

It is the object of this Dictionary, speaking generally, to supply 

an adequate account, based upon original authorities, of all 

persons connected with the History of the Church within the period 

treated concerning whom anything is known, of the Literature 

connected with them, and of the controversies respecting Doctrine 

or Discipline in which they were engaged. From the Articles on 

Doctrine we have carefully excluded subjects of controversy which 

arose at a later date than the period with which the Dictionary 

<ieab ; so that doctrinal terms which became matter of dispute 

only in the Middle Ages, or at the Reformation, are not discussed 

in these pages. Our object has been to treat these subjects from 

a purely historical point of view, and simply to give an impartial 

account of what was believed, thought, and done in the early ages 

* A Dictionary of Christian Antiquitiety being a oontinuation of the Dicticmary of 
the BibUy edited by WUliam 8mitb, D.C.L., LL.D., and i^aiuuel Cheetham, M.A., 
ProfeMor of Pastoral Theology in King's CoUege, London; vol. L London: John 
Uarray. 1875. 


of Christianity^ without entering upon the disputable conclusionf 
drawn from these facts by various schools or parties. Though ii 
would be too much to hope that these principles haye been applied 
with uniform strictness^ we can at least assert that throughout the 
composition and revision of the Work they have been diligentl} 
kept in view. 

It will readily be imderstood with respect to an undertaking of thii 
comprehensive nature^ dealing with extremely varied and often verj 
obscure periods of Church history, that experience alone could deter- 
mine the precise limits within which it should be confined and the 
best method of conducting it. At one time the intention was enter 
tained of exhibiting a complete Onomasticon of the Christian world foi 
the first eight centuries ; but it was foimd that to aim at such an ideal 
would delay the Work indefinitely. We therefore found it desirable 
to adopt another standard which, without falling very far short of the 
former, would render the Dictionary complete for all practical pur 
poses. The labours of great foreign scholars since the Beformatioa 
particularly of Baronius, of Tillemont, of Ceillier, and of more recent 
French and German authors, have brought together nearly all the 
primary materials for the general Church history of our period ; 
and similarly grand collections have been made for the Churcl 
history of particular nations. It was thought that if these labours 
were taken as our starting-point, and if an effort were made tc 
ensure that all the materials afforded in these voluminous collec* 
tions were verified, utilised, and brought within practicable compass 
we should at least have carried the work done by our predecesson 
an important step forward, and should have placed within the 
reach of general readers whatever is essential to the study of Churcl: 
history. In the execution of this plan the authorities have beer 
investigated afresh, with the aid of the light thrown upon tliem 
by modem learning, and care has been taken that our accounts 
should, as far as possible, be derived immediately from the original 
sources. Particular attention has of course been paid to the chiej 
Fathers of the Church, and they have been made the subject oi 
special studies by some of our principal contributors. AH persons 
mentioned in their works have been noticed, wliether Christians 
or not, and accordingly Roman Emperors and pagan writers have 
been admitted in our pages, so far as they influenced the externa] 
fortunes or the thought ot the Church. 

We think, therefore, it may justly be claimed for this Work 
that, with the aid of great scholars of former times as well as oi 
our own, it presents to the public a more complete collection ol 


materials for the Ecolesiastioal History of the important period with 
which it deals than has hitherto been produced either in England or 
abroad ; and we venture to hope that, with the companion Work on 
Antiquities* it may vindicate for English scholarship a higher place in 
this field of learning than has hitherto been attained. At the same 
time it will be understood from what has been said that, as the plan 
of the Dictionary was only gradually formed, some inequality will 
be found in the treatment of the subject in the present volume, 
especially in the earlier part In consequence, moreover, of the 
unavoidably long period over which the preparation of the volume 
has extended, some of the earlier articles may need to be supple- 
mented with information which has been brought to light since 
they were printed. All such defects will be remedied in a 
Sapplemcnt, to be published at the conclusion of the Work, which 
will also afford an opportunity for correcting those errors or errata 
which, in a first edition, will be admitted to be unavoidable. 

It should further be explained that special attention has been 
paid to the Church History of England, Scotland, and Ireland ; and 
in this department of the Work the same plan has in substance been 
foUowed. The great historical collection known as the Monumenia 
BtdoTica Briiannica, Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy's Descriptive Cator 
loffue of Materials relative to the History of Great Britain and Ireland, 
and the important volumes by Professor Stubbs and the late Mr. 
Haddan entitled Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents rdating to Great 
Britain and Ireland have been diligently consulted, and authorities 
quoted by them have been, as far as possible, minutely examined. 
A scale has been allowed for the treatment of names in this portion 
of the Work which would have been, perhaps, impracticable in 
respect to other countries. Without including, as would have been 
necessary in a complete Onomasticon, all the names which might 
be collected from the signatures to charters and other public docu- 
ments, we have endeavoured to notice every person bearing an 
ecclesiastical designation or office, and every person of royal rank, 
as it is impossible in these early no^es to separate ecclesiastical 
from political history. Dugdale's Monasticon and similar works 
have, for this purpose, been carefully examined. The Church 
History of Scotland and Ireland was entrusted to the late 
Bishop of Brechin, and since his death has, in the main, been 
committed to the clergyman by whom, under the Bishop's super- 
intendence, the actual work had previously been executed. 

It would not have been convenient for the reader, even if it had 
been practicable, to apply rigidly a uniform principle to the spelling 


of proper names. Where an abbreviated or modified orthography 
has become naturalised in English, we have usually retained it in the 
heading of an artide ; taking care, however, to give the more correct 
form, and a cross reference when necessary. Contributors have beei 
left to name the editions from which they quote ; but as a rule 
when nothing is said to the contrary, the Fathers are quoted 
according to the standard pagination, which is marked in large 
figures in the text of Migne's edition. It may also be as well tc 
mention that Ceillier is generally referred to in the very useful 
edition published in Paris between 1858 and 1869. 

When the plan of this Christian Cyclopaedia was formed, the 
editorship of the portion comprised in these volumes was placed ii 
the hands of Professors Lightfoot and Westcott, under the genera 
superintendence of Dr. William Smith, and the Work owes much tc 
the labour which was at first bestowed upon it by those two di» 
tinguished scholars. The pressure of other engagements compellec 
them before long to relinquish this task, but their subsequent co 
operation and advice, so far as their time has allowed them to afibrc 
it, claims the best thanks of the present Editors. On their retire 
ment. Dr. William Smith assumed the editorship as far as the end o 
the articles in B ; but from the commencement of the articles in ( 
Professor Wace has acted as Editor, with the advice and assistanci 
of Dr. Smith. 

In conclusion, while gratefully acknowledging the hearty co 
operation of all their contributors, without which the production o 
any such work would have been impossible, the Editors are bounc 
to express their special obligations in two instances. Their firs 
acknowledgments are due to Dr. Salmon, the Regius Professor o 
Divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, who, in addition to contributing 
many important articles, had the generosity to volunteer at the las 
moment to read through the latter and the larger part of the proo 
sheets; and the Editors cannot sufficiently express their sense o 
the advantage the Work has derived from his learned supervisioi 
Their other acknowledgments must be tendered to the Rev. Charle 
Hole, the author of a Brief Biographical Dictionary y well known t 
historical students. The completeness with which, as the Editor 
hope, English Ecclesiastical History has been treated in this volum 
is in great measure due to the accurate labours of Mr. Hole. The; 
have also to thank him for invaluable assistance in revising th 
proofs, and in making those supplementary investigations by whicl 
alone a Dictionary of this kind can be rendered trustworthy. 




1BBA.HTI8 (Sl). of CIJ-AbUJD, in Ui- 
IwMdkiucb (eo. Hath), ud of High-Ar- 
HilW IB Oi-C«ia*nlUi|b (co. WtifanlX IrUb 
■UMi, im tlH 5tli uid sA oatDriM. Th* nditor 
iftbt lift is tbt Acta Saactarmt (Bnnallii, 
lIST, Mio) DBnnli tht caaftuioB which hu 
•nbj«t,bif <liicrlinin»tio([ 

of tha I 

B, both of 

IW nfil Eunilj ef I«init«r. 
b SL Abbas of Oll-AbtMiB, origiulljr iiun«d 
Kith, HB of the (Irtcr of St. Ibu the contcm- 
t>nrj rf SL Patrick in tha &th nntorj, and 
awDBHraled ia tha Calcadan oa tht ISth of 
Mutb. Of him aothing certain ii kooam. The 
htdiae i> thcB St. AbbaaoFHagh-Arauidha, ion 
•Tlbtiiitrr af St. Caevgea, ia the 6th ccatarr, 
mi ■miiiMBoratad oa tha ZTth of OctobaV. 
Tn Lalia aad two Irish lin* ban baea pre- 
rnni, bat all bwt apau ooa pmreHiofc to hare 
knt wriltca bf a gtut-gnadva of oBa whntn 
St ibbaa bad baptized. Twrnlf mooutariei 
ui BfatioMd aa haTlDg been fouadod bj the 
■at. alnwt all in the ualhara faalfof Inlaad. 

(O'Clerr, Ifarlynl. Dangall., «L Todd and 
bra; Colgaa, Acta SS. Hibtrniat; At-ta S.1. 
ftMnJ, torn. lii. p. 270.) [H. B,] 

ABDA, or ABDAS, biihop af Si»a (Th«- 
floata. Onmagr. >Db an. 406), called bj Socntea 
(TiL g) biihop of Penia. Ha ie mid to haie u- 
■Rid Hanthai in driiiog a demoa oot of (he 
■> af l-l*«*nlai or VtKkcaH, king of Pania. 


oorae down to ns. It la dirtrlbated Inta tea booln, 
ud coniprlM* tht Acta of tha Apoatlai Pattr, 

P*nl, Andrew, Jama tht ton of Zsbedea, Joha, 
lamaa the ion ofAlphaani, Simon and Jnde, Hat- 
thaw, Bulbolomew, Thomu, and Philip. Tha 
■ork ii Introduced bj a preface which pretendi t* 
lure bean written br tht hlntoriaa AfriouiDl, 
Lr. tha caltbratad chroaographer Juliui Afri- 
caaoi, who wai caatamporKr^ with Qrigeo. 
rhe 'Acti' which follow art alleged to hate been 
nHgiullr wntlan in Hebrew b^ Abdiai, a com> 
panioB of the two Apoatlei 9t. Simon and 3t. 
Jnda, and fint biihop of Babjlon. to hart bera 
tnamlated bf hii diuiplt Eutropiui into OrMk, 
tnd to halt been thanca randarad into Latin 
b; AfricaDni, and diitribntad b; him Into tan 
books, so that each Apoatle had a book t<i hlm- 


onlj of the siitb 

J- " 

Uini tbn« aUn of his alleged step-brothers, 
Simon and St. Jude. The aothonhlp of theaa 
is howerer altriUutad Dr>l to Abdiai hinutlf, 

lo another diiciple of tha two apoatlei, 
1 is calltd Criton (//ill. Apodal. tI. 20X 

from whoaa work, which it alio laid to 

circnUled toRietirata under tbt o 

It <S. 

he wai making a tour of tha .Mti 
I. i. Mi, 177, ISl; ill. 19> la 
* (iL 401) ht olU him Abila, hi 

•(thi Buiiaa. In Socratea (ril. 8) his oanit ii 
nmpl^ into 'ArXU, and Epiphanlui Scholas- 
licw (alls him -ASKtir^i. [W. A. W.] 

ABDtA& L'Ddtrlht namtef Abdlai, whom 
lb( Itgtad make* fint biihop of Babylon, a col- 
lictiaa ef apecrrphal AcU of Apoitlas written ia 
Utia 1*1 baariag th* ftntral title HUlo^ia Ctr~ 
Immmi Apot/atid or tfiiM 

rrad U 

tnantioiwd in tha um* 
work of Craton I* ra- 

it hit being regarded ai the author of 
thitwnrk. A«ording to thi^ apocrTphal writer*! 
itatamrnt. tha two Apoalits Simoa aad Juda, 
tRer ordaining Abdiai buhop of Babirlon, take 
their journey Into Penia, and for the apaca of 
thirteen yan traremt the twel™ prorincei of 

ippeal lo the tw 
th. later hi.lorj- 

uiplea and companion!, Craton, ai fail a 



ritj. This alone is a sufficient hint that the 
statement in the preface attributing the whole 
work to Abdias as its author is a fiction. The 
other statement likewise, that Afiicanos was the 
translator, is contradicted by the author's own 
language in the sixth book. For he there dis- 
tinguishes himself from the imaginary Africanus, 
whom he now designates as the author of a 
much more extended work concerning the two 
Apostles Simon and Jude, of which he only 
giyes certain extracts. The reference of these 
histories of the Apostles to the oldest possible and 
contemporary witnesses is after all a somewhat 
rude attempt at deception. Africanus wrote of 
course in Greek, not in Latin ; but this author 
had evidently the works of Jerome and Rufinus 
before him. He makes a series of Scriptural 
quotations from the text of the Latin Vulgate, 
and inserts long extracts from the Church History 
of Rufinus, as well as from his Latin rersion of 
the Clementine Recognitions. The names of 
Abdias of Babylon and of Craton are inventions 
of some predecessor of the present writer. The 
latter must undoubtedly have been referred to 
as an eye-witness and original authority in the 
earlier Acts of St. Simon and St. Jude, from 
which large extracts are incorporated in the 
sixth book of the Histonae ApatMicae. His 
name meets us yet again in a fragment of the 
Acts of the Apostle Bartholomew, for which we 
are indebted to Stephen Praetorius. There like- 
wise Craton is designated as a disciple of 
St. Simon and St. Jude. Compare the Frag^ 
menta Apostohnim in the Appendix to Prae- 
torius' edition (in German and Latin) of the 
Apocryphal Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodi- 
ceans, Hamburg, 1595. These FragmerUa are re- 
printed in Fabridtts Cod. Apocryph, N, Test, 
ii. 931. The name of Abdias too belongs un- 
doubtedly to the original source of the narrative 
in the sixth book of the Historiae Apodolicae, 
It is probably derived originally from the legend 
of Thaddaeua, referred to by Eusebius {H, E, 
i. 13), in which a certain Abdos, son of Abdu, is 
spoken of as having been healed of a disease in 
uie feet by the Apostle. (Compare also the 
Doctrina Addaei in Cureton*s Ancient Syriao 
Documents^ London, 1864, pp. 7, 13, where the 
same person is called Abdu, son of Abdu.) At 
any rate, this name appears in the Latin version 
of Eusebius by Rufinus (of which diligent use is 
made by our author) in the more familiar form 
of Abdias, bv which the LXX represents the 
Hebrew Obadiah (HHSy). With this has been 
combined a statement of Theodoret (H, E. v. 39) 
and of Socrates (^. E. vii. 8), according to which 
a Persian temple of the sun is said to have been 
destroyed by a bishop named Abda — a story which 
may at any rate remind us of the destruction of 
the temple of the Sun and Moon in the Persian 
city Sunnir related by our author {Hiet, Apost, 
ri. 21-23), but by him attributed to a miracu- 
lous interposition at the martyrdom of the 
Apostles Simon and Jude. Moreover, the name 
Abda is not identical with Abdias. And how- 
ever that may be, there is certainly no trace 
in the whole of ecclesiastical antiquity of the 
existence of such a work as these Acts or His- 
tories of the Apostles by an author so named. 
Hie first signs of an acquaintance with it meet 
MM la Venantius Fortunatus (t609), who, in a 
potm fai praise of virginity (dp. JiitcelL viiL 5, 

comp. 6), alludes to a series of legends cimoe 
ing the Apostles which can be referred to 
other than this pseudo-Abdias. The paasag^ 
as follows ;— 

" NoUUs Andresm mittit Acbafa sanm 
Prsedpuum roeritb Kpbesus veneraoda Joannen 
Dlriglt et Jscobos terra beats sacros 
Laeia snis votis Hierapolb alma Pbllippum 
Prodocens Thomam muniu Edesaa pium 
Jnde triumpbantpm lert India Bartbolomseum 
Mattbaeum eximium Naildaver alta virum 
Hlnc Simonem et Jodam lumen I\erBida gemeUv 
LaeU reUxato miuii ad asira slnu." 

If to the Apostles here designated we add 
names of Peter and Paul, mentioned in the ve] 
immediately preceding, we shall have all 
twelve Apostles together, of whom the Hitto 
of Abdias treat, which, taking the variations 
the Catalogues of the Apostles into account, 
hardly be regarded as accidental. A still grei 
weight in the scale must be attached to 
agreement as to the localities in which 
Apostles are said to have suffered martyrd 
On this subject there is no uniform tradit 
except in reference to St. Peter, St. Pi 
St. John, and St. Philip. With regard to 
the rest the legends and martyrologies di 
widely. Venantius Fortunatus however foil 
throughout the tradition as exhibited by Abd 
They both, for instance, place the tomb of 
Bartholomew in India ; while Gregory of T< 
(573-595), and with him the Greek Acts 
Bartholomew (Ttschendorf, Acta Apostoiot 
Apocrypha, p. 259) are already acquainted f 
the legend that the isle of lipari, near Si< 
possesses his bones. So also Venantius, 1 
Abdias (vi. 20 — 23), knows of the martyn 
of Simon and Jude in Persia, the translatioi 
the bones of St. Thomas from India to Ed 
(Abdias ix. 25), and the city of Naddavci 
Ethiopia, as the place of St. Matthew's mar 
dom (Abdias vii. 1 sq.). This Naddaver is 
where mentioned by writers of the first six < 
turies, but only in later Martyrologies. (C 
pare the Atia St. Matthaei in the Acta Sanctor 
Septemb. t. vi. p. 220 sq., a production basec 
this of Abdias.) It is however again mentioned 
Fortunatus in the next following poem (viii. 7] 

*' Quos Patra, quos Epbesus, Naddaver aroe tenet ;" 

where Patra involves a reference to St. 
di*ew (comp. Abdias, iii. 35 sqq.), Ephesuf 
St. John, and Naddaver to St. Matthew. Su 
quently to Venantius Fortunatus various autl 
exhibit actjuaintance with the Apostolic Histc 
of Abdias ; e.g. Bede (f 735), wiio refers to ti 
as " historiae in quibus passiunes Apostolo; 
continentur," and rejects them as Apocry] 
{Retract, in Acta Afost. cap. i ; comp. Fabri 
ii. pp. 629 sq., 639); and Aldhelm (£>. 
Geruntium regem, in the epistles of Bonifac 
comp. Fabricius iii. p. 602), who refers 
the plots of Simon Magus against St. Pete 
related in the " Certamen Airostohrum " (».e. 
dias, lib. i. and ii.), and in the ten books of Cler 
(i>. the Clementine Recognitions). In accord 
with these references, and taking into aco 
on the one hand the acquaintance with this v 
betrayed bv Fortunatus, and on the othei 
author's ignorance of the translation to 
island of Li pari of the bones of St. Bartl 
mew, we cannot fix on a later date for its < 




MltiM Um Um Meo&d half of the 6th oenttiry. 
Mt Mithcr tmn we aMigv it an earlier date, as 
CSitMhmid has prored (i>ir K&mgwnamen in den 
tfterypk. AptmUigetchickUn ; Bheinischei Muaevm 

I fir PkHototfie^ Neae Folge, six. p. 387 sq.). The 
itMy told by Abdiaa in the Ada Matthaei of a 
kiBf of Ethiopia named Beor, who in his lifetime 
CAeatitnted one son commander of his army and 
Bsde the other king, and who liyed till the day 
•f his death in peace with the Romans and Per- 
lius (Abdiaa, rii. 15) has a real historical basis 
is the history lof the Abyssinian King Elesbaas 
to whidi Fabridns refers (Cod, Apocr, N, T. ii. 
pi 653) in illnstration of the epithet rgx Chri*- 
haaivimmt applied to Aeglippns (rii. 8). Elesbaas 
snbjngatad in the year 52^4 the kingdom of the 
Kshaeans and from that time the Abyssinians 
were inrolTed in the contests between the Ro- 
■MBS and Persians. These Ada Matthaei there- 
fore, incorporated in the work of Abdias, must 
hare been written subsequently to the year 

The place where is not so easy to determine as 
the tine when these histories of Abdias were 
writtes. One thing only is certain, that they 
wigtaated in the West, and that Latin is the 
IsBfuage in which they were written. This is 
.enlent tram the use made of the Latin Vulgate, 
■ai of Cusebius and the Clementine Recogni- 
tioas in the translations of Rnfinus as well as of 
TirioQs other Latin recensions of Greek Acta, 
Tkc proof is less cogent which may be drawn 
ftoa plays on words such as wm etirii aed con- 
anil emm (riii. 8) and impetrabam mm trnpero' 
AaBi(ii. 21 X the former at any rate being a mere 
initatiin of a similar Greek paronomasia. The 
Creek originals howerer are probably only medi- 
it<ir made use of. 

The collection as it here lies before us as a 
siiole seems to hare been made with no other 
^ject than that of gratifying a pious curiosity, 
ud not intended to subsenre any such local 
iaterests as hare giren rise to so many legends 
•f the Saints. The Acta Matthaei, writUn in 
tbe hut years of the 10th century and in the 
■MBastery of St. Eucharius at Trtres, though 
ftimkertr attached, in early printed editions, to 
thU o>Uection of Abdias (first of all by Wolf- 
pMz Lazius, Basle, 1351), could not, as the date 
U it* composition shows, have formed originally 
sar part of it. Our collection appears to have 
ki^D composed in some Frank ish monastery in 
vbieh a learned contempomry of Gregory of 
Tvars seems to have put together what he could 
cr4i«ct of older and more recent narrations of 
tb« deeds and fates of the different Apostles, and 
tt> harp sought to enhance the credibility of his 
enB^tiUtion by attaching to it the names of 
Abltas as a di#ciple of Apostles and of the cele- 
W«ted chronographer Africanus. The first 
tracrs of its eiistence certainly meet us in the 
Fnokwh kingdom, and that soon af^er the 
t JM of its composition ; and as the monastic in- 
ititutioBs of that kingdom were in the 10th 
eatery the seat of great literary activity, the 
tVivc conjecture in default of more certain in- 
fcraution appears the most probable. 

For the test of Abdias we are still dependent 
•• the old printed editions, among which that of 
F«bridus (Cod. Apocr, N, T, ii. pp. 402-742), if 
t»t the most correct, is the mo#t accessible. (For 
i tisi ef older editions, see Fabricius p. 400 sq.) 

Bat little further assistance is afforded by the 
parallel texts of single books as printed in the 
Acta Sanctorum, From a manuscript described 
in the Acta Sanctorum (May t. i. p. 7, and June 
t. T. p. 399), and also by Fabricius (p. 401) and 
Thilo (^Acta Petri H Pauli, fasc 1, Halle 1837, 
p. 28), which formerly belonged to the monastery 
of St. Peter and St. Paul at Weissenburg, and 
afterwards to a Baron Blum, Imperial Councillor 
of Appeals, from whose possession it passed first 
to Helmst«dt, and then to WolfenbUttel (Guel- 
ferbjt. A. in Thilo), it is evident that these 
^ histories " of Abdias received additions from 
older documents and from other sources. In 
this manuscript they bear the title MelMo Epin- 
copns de Virtutibu$ Apoetolomm, followed by the 
Epistola EncycUca, elsewhere prefixed to the 
Passio Johannis (an apocryphal work, also cir^ 
culated under the name of Melito; Fabricius 
iii. p. 604 sq.). To the Virtutes Pauli is 
immediately attached in this MS. the Possts 
Petri et Pamli of the psendo-Marcellus, from 
which a passage has found its way into our pre- 
sent text of Abdias, though wanting in many 
MSS. Single books were frequently copi^ 
separately, undergoing here and there altera- 
tions in the process and receiving separate in- 

The psendo-Abdias himself indicates as the 
sources whence he drew his information, besides 
the New Testament, certain older documents con- 
cerning the martyrdoms of single Apostles (Prao" 
fatio Operi Praefixa : ** nam de muitis quae hac 
de re a veteribus scripta sunt nihil ad nos 
praeter ipsorum passionum monumenta vene- 
rnnt "). Among these he makes special mention 
'* of a certain book '* in which the journey of 
St. Thomas into India and his deeds there are 
described (ix. 1). The reference is evidently to 
the Acta Thotnae which still exist in a fragmen- 
tary shape in the original Greek, and were in the 
hands of our author in a more complete form 
than now in ours. From these he extracts 
largely, omitting what appeared to him supers 
fluous ( tupervacaneis emissii); the allusion 
being probably to the speeches and hymns which, 
from their Gnostic colouring, were not fitted to 
edify the Church (eccicsiam roborare'). He also 
elsewhere several times expressly declares thai 
he is only making extracts from more copious 
sources of information ; e. g. in the passage already 
referred to (vi. 20), where he assures us that he 
has selected only a little from the writing of the 
alleged disciple of the .\{)ostles, Craton, concern- 
ing the Acts of St. Simon and St. Jude, trans- 
lated, as he pretends, by Africanus. Again a 
similar statement meets us in the Acts of St. 
Matthew (vii. 8), which in the source from whence 
pseudo-AbdIas drew his information may have 
been already connected in a loose or merely acci- 
dental way with those of St. Simon and St. Jude. 
In other places too, where he does not expressly 
say so, he is simply making extracts from his 
authorities, and these often so abridged as to be 
nearly unintelligible, while elsewhere he gives 
long connected passages. A great part of the 
writings thus employed are still in existence; 
the existence of others can with some degree of 
certainty be inferred. The value of his compila- 
tion for us consists in this, that he had before 
him a large numl)er of works now lost, if not in 
the original, yet in a Latin version ; and that of 

B a 


Othcn li< bid bctlar text* than v* at prwcut 

The ■athoritiM thai mtde hk at. » fir u w< 
ouk itill uccrUJD tbiic, in the rollowing:— (1) 
St. itnmt't Utin nnion of th« Ne« THiunsnt 
(the Vnlgste). (2) Rnfiiiiu' Litin rmioa of 
tht ChurcA Hiitory of Eiuebiiu (Alxliu r. 3, vi. 
4-6). (3) The Utin Ttnion uf the Clemmtini 
StaigiiUunu (Abdiu i. 7-11, tL 2, 3), and that 
of th< Epatola CIrmentii ad Jacolxim (Abdiu i. 
15), br Bufimu. (4) St. Jerom.'. book d* Viri, 
lOiatr. (Abdiu Ti. I> (5) PKudo-Hc^ippu Dt 
Sacidio /{itntolynyit or the L«tifl par»phra» of 
Jouphiu' work od the Jewiah wit (Abdiu i. 16- 
S0> (6) Ptaudo-Miircellu) Af i>auk>n« />e(/TCt 
Pai^i ; U. 1 Ulin Tunion of the nfNi{>it ni-rpai 
ml n«iAo«(Abdiuii.7), pabliibed i,jTl,i\o(,Acta 
Petri ti P-jali, Halle, 1837, 1838) nai TiioheD- 
dl>Tf{Acia Apoat. Apocr. p. 1 Aq.), togtther with 
a paua^ inserted ia the KctioD taken from 
pMndo-HigFiippui, and faand in our printed 
to>U of Abdiu (i. 17, 18) though waoting id that 
gllea in the Ada Sanctor. (JnD. tom. t. p. 424 
■q.> (7) Tht LatiD letsioD of pHudo-Liniu 
De Paaiont Petri ei Paali [Bibt. Pair. Maxima 
ll. p. 67 Vf.), being a tiatbolic adaptation of 
Gnoitic Act* of St. Paul and St. P«ter (Abdiu i. 
20, ii, 8> (S) A Catholic adapUtion of the 
Gnojtic wtfiiatei and the /lapr&puHf 'Airtpiou. 
likewiK in Utia (Abdiu ill. 3-4Z> The t»t of 
the wipitin, which deacribe the jonneji ol 
St. Andrew from Pontu. to Oiwc. (PhilMtriiu 
ffae'. 88X it now ontr koowD to at through 
Abdiu (witii exception of the hiitorj of St. An- 
drew'if doingi among the Anthropophagi referred 
to in Abdiu iii. 2, 3, which we pouw now in id 
original form in the Gno>tlcwf>ii(iii'Ar3f>(oir col 
~" ' ' ■ f"' ' ' "'■ Ada Aposi. Apocr. 
" '^ t /Ajipripiar fi 

2 eq.). 

iwardi i 


ji that o 

Uined la the Epia. Prabytt-m 

Achli " ■ ■ . - 
30 Norember, Greek trit In TiicheDdorf Acta 
Ap<ut. Apocr. p. 105 eq.). (9) A Utin lenion 
oftha *f(ifDl'Di'Ia^r«v, whidi al» wu originally 
a Onoitic work bnt bu undergone a Catholic 
rensiou. Od it are baaed both the Latin Pro- 
dartu {Bibt. Pair. Mazima, t. ii. p. 40 iq.) 
and the Latin VeaUui dt Patmone Jotamii 
(Fabriciiu Cod. Apocr. iii. p. 604 eq.). Set 
Abdiai T. 2 and 4-23 : o. 2 itandi in coonec. 
tioo with the puudo-Prodiorui, cc 4-23 witb 
ihe peeudv-Mellilue. Id both caeea Abdiu re- 
.._. .1 . -j-jjal form. Oni 


and pnrified u madi u poailbla fron tb« 

Gnoatic elemeota. (11) A Utin t«t of psen 

Oraton De Vita el Marii/rio Simoait et Jm 

(Abdiaa ii. 1-23); and (12) The Ada AlaUlt 

mitely connected Id their origin with ' 

le, and dating from the leoood quarter of' 

centnrj (Abdiaa Hi.> (13) A Utin Ten 

.he Neatorian vpdjfii Bnp^oAsMu'su (Abd 

) nearer to the original farm than the (in 

: in TiKheudorf (I. c p. 243 eq.) whict 

resnlt of a ait{a[ reriaion bf a Catho 

(14) Ada Jaeabi Majarit (Abdiu n. 2-9), 

ork, of which, with the exception 

quoted in the ffypdypmei of Oleni 

" j>eb. ff. E. ii. 9), no ot: 

I. (15) Acta FMIippi, ■ 

rhera (Abdiu x. 3-4)) 

pari of thii work howerel appean to have b 

' rived from the Gnoitic ripMoi fiAln-ov. 

The object which psendo-Abdiu aeemt to hi 

ipt miinlr in liew in the compilation of 

ork, and the uae made of hia authoritin, 1 

Gdelilf Dor on the other to eubeerve any p 
poieii of dogmatic iaatruction, but aiiaptT 
give u complete a collection u pouible of ' 
^'itarieioftheApoatles, their AcU and Mart 
ma, and more eapecially (heir miraclca. N 

eitend to too great length are abridged wi 
t acruplo. Anything which might give olfe 
)m a dogmatic point of Ticw ii carefully 
iTed or reriHd in ■ Catholic kdk. The 
ID that the whole work procecda from an e 
tneie is partly maintained bf pseudo-Abd 
atom of preserring the tint person where 
findi it naad by hi) anthoritie* (compart 
3 eq., iii. 42, t. 23, ii. 18). [R. A. 1 

ADDON (ABDns) and SENNEN (Schhi 
SS., two Penian pHncee martyred at Rome un 
Deciiu. of whom en account ie giren in the Di 

Greek ti 

dorf'a Ada Apod, f 


(in Ti«: 

6 iq.) la ftxgmentary, 
,y raie not quiie true to the origimii 
agreca better with Abdiu than with 
paeudo-Uellitne ; the former indeed ha* here and 
there preaerved the original form more faltli- 
fnlly ilill. (10) A Utin •enion of the Gnoatic 
Ada Thaaat (Abdiu ii, 2-2S> A great part 
of tbi> work ii now known to na through pKudo- 
Abdiu only (ii. B-15X who alio hu piner ' 
the coDcluding part, the Martyrium Thomat. ic 
laa*t a much more complete form than 
Greek TiAeiarrii Ov/w, first printed by Tiuh 
Jorf (.let. Ap. Apocr. p. 235; camp. Abdiu, 
16-35). The fint portion preaerred to ue 
(ha original Greek {Ada TAonue, ed. Thilo, Halle, 
IB33; Tiichendorf Ada Apoel. Apocr, p. 1»0 
•q.) ia gireB by Abdiu in a rarj' abridged form, 


ABEL, St., of Imleach-fiach (no 
CO. Mesth), an Iriih abbat, ii recordea lo n 
died in 142. (_Annali of Ihe Four Matterg, 
O'Donovan.) [H. I 

ABELOXn. the name of an objure Ic 

in X. Africa, in and before the lime of Ang 
tine (fl« H.'er. 87). When he wrote, about 4 
it woiconliDed to a single hamlet, of whicl 
heldeiclusiTepoaiesaion. EIh where its ndbere 
had " become Catholiea." The members of 
Abelnnian community were all obliged to 
married, but alto to lire in virgin wedlf 
Each couple adopted a boy and a girl, and fil 
up the number whenever one died. Upon 
deceue of either adoptive parent the child 

lifetime, and then lucceeded to the prope 
nod adopted a fresh couple. There wu do d 
cuity in keeping up the supply of adopt 
child re D, u the prospect of i.n inherita 
tempted poor Deighboura to surrender their 
spring, linlbrtunately we do not learn whet 
these pmcticet were combined with any (leco. 

Augnstina nfen the tennlDalion of A'-ii 
to a Punic Infleilon. Some, he uyi, derived 
name from Abel, >bo that we might cttll ' 
members oftblaect'Abeliuii or Abeloitu.' [} 


ABKBCIU8 CA/l^pKMr, *Aw4ptcios, 'Afitpiciof, 
ttcV ibc repated suoesMor of Papiu at bishop 
if Hicr^yolis, c 160, is recorded to hare been 
bw» of rtpatAble Christian parentage, to hare 
idlered from the pcrsecations of M. Anrelins and 
Vena, and to hare died a natural death in their 
jrnt reigB. The memoir of the anonymous author 
•a the origin of the Montanist heresy giren by 
iBsebios (/f. E. lib. r. c. 16) is addressed to a 
certain 'AeWpiccoff MiptctXKos, who may be pro- 
Whly identified with the bishop of Hierapolis. 
He is BMBtioiMd by Nicephorus (H, E. ir. 23), 
nply as 'AB4^Us rit. In the Greek Menohgies^ 
Oct. 22, we find a notice of rev kylov tcaX iffmro' 
eriiev 'A04pmio¥ iwunc^ov *Upav6\99»Sy rov 
ht^mrmpy^- HalloU ( Vitae P,P. Orient^ rol. 
1.) has gi^en a life of Abercius drawn from 
Sraeon Ifetaf^rastes and the Menologtes, full 
•f oatmstwortby tales. The most noticeable of 
Umm is th« exorcism by Abercius of an evil 
tfuii with which Lucilla, the daughter of Marcus 
lircliua, then betrothed to Verus, was possessed. 
M. Aareliaa, in gratitude for hu daughter's cure, 
ii nid to hare made an annual largess of 3000 
Mdii of com to the poor of Hierapolis, and to 
bre ertrted baths orer some hot springs that had 
neently bvirst forth. Abercius is reported to 
kire been the author of a Book of Discipline 
he the nae of his clergy, and of a letter to M. 
Aorelius, a copy of which latter was once in 
tW hands of the historian Baronius, who spealcs 
•f its loea with great regret (Baron. Ann. Eccl., 
AJk. 163, DO. zi. ZT.> See Act. S8. Boll. Oct. 
K. [E. v.] 

ABGAB, the name of sertral kings of Edessa, 
whe reigned, according to the chronology of 
the Chronicle of that city, at rarious periods, 
naziag from it.c. 99 to a.o. 217. The etymo- 
Icf ▼ aflMl origin of this word are doubtful ; de- 
rirstMMM hare been sought for it in Armenian, 
Syriac and Arabic. In the Armenian history of 
Uo&bt of Chorene (p. 165, ed. Whistoo) it is ex- 
(liaiBcd as a corruption of Avagair^ a word com- 
pcnaded of ata^ and air, which is said to signify 
t«> primariuM or insignis. The Greeks and 
Srrians, being unable to pronounce this, corrupted 
It to abyar. Bar Ali, in his Lexicon, quoted by 
iWrasteiB (^Lex. S^.) and Dr. Payne Smith 
{Tka. SprJX sars the name is Armenian and 
•ipiifics **Ume.^ His testimony is of ralue, 
tiKiagh the explanation he giresmay be incorrect, 
Wainse it shows that he did not trace it to an 
inbic or Syriac root. In Syriac the word 

lii^^l, or i.^^^), has unquestionably the 

Btttting of ** lame,'* or rather, as Lagarde (Ge- 
mmmglte Abhnndlungen^ p. 6) says, **crippl€Ki"; 
kt IB tills sense it has been borrowed from the 

^r»i*«, jlXfU iifgAry or -U^, figdr^ which has 

tW same meaning. It occurs in the com- 
»*ntarr of Kphrem Syros on 2 Sam. xtx. 24, 
«^th reference to Mephibosheth ; and Assemani 
{H. O. lit. 232) gives the surname of John V. 
Ktrisrch of the Nestorians as Bar A'tgore, 
vbich he renders ** filius claudi," or rather, 
« U gires it elsewhere (ii. 440), ** claud- 
wuB." In another passage (i. 261, note) he 
isTi, ** A'f^ar aotem Syriace claudum sonat," and 
■siatains thmi it was an appellation of the 
k«p of Edaasa, as Caesar among the Romans, 
fh«Mh aad Ptolanij ia KcTpt, and Antiochus 


in Syria. Whatever be the true etymology of 
the proper name Abgar, there can be no doubt 
that the word so much like it in Syriac, (^or 
or abgorOf is of foreign, probably Persian, origin. 
The forms, both Latin and Greek, in which the 
name appears are rarious. The coins have uni- 
formly "A^apof. In Eusebius (/f. E. i. 13) the 
MSS. vary between "Ayfiupos and *Afiyapos, 
The former of tnese is found in Suidas (s. v. 
&^iry^<rorrai), the latter in the same author 
(s. 0. *Av6tfAovs), Appian {De Belh Parth. p. 
140) has *'Ajc/9apof , and Herodian (iii. 9), Proco- 
pius {De Bella Pers. ii. 12), Dion Cassius (xl. 20, 
flic), Suidas (s. w. ACyapot, ^v\dpx''lff /XX($/3ta, 
lK4rtvfiet, itintr^)y Nicephorus (ii. 13), and Ced- 
renns (^Hist. Comp. p. 175) hare A^apos, a 
form which somewhat farours the Armenian 
origin of the word giren abore. In Latin we 
findi4c6artt8(Tac.i4nn. xii. 12 ; Aelius Spartianus, 
Vit. Seven'j c 18 ; Julius Capitolinus, Vit. Ant, 
P. c 9), and in Aurelius Victor {De Caetar. xx. 
14) Agarrus. Clemens Galanus (/^isf. Ann. c 1) 
uses both Abganu and Abagarus^ and some MSS. 
of Tacitus, quoted by Ruperti, exhibit the raria- 
tions Abbarw, AebaruSj AbatuSf and Achanu, 
The forms "Ayfiaposy or "Ax^apos^ and Acbarua^ 
hare suggested the identification of the name 
Abgar with the Arabic Akbar, which is derired 
fVom a root signifying ** to be great " ; and this 
deriration is faroured by Valesius, in his notes to 
Eusebius {H. E. i. 13), in spite of the reading of 
the best MS. and the unanimous testimony of the 
coins. In addition to those which hare been 
already quoted, we find, in the notes of Pontacus 
to his edition of Jerome's Chronicle of Eusebiui, 
the forms Aggarus, Abacarus^ and Abcarus. while 
in the Armenian Version of the same Chronicle 
(ed. Aucher, i. 164), there is yet another rariety, 
Apkariwos. The proper name Apkar still exists 
among the Armenians. There can be little 
doubt therefore, that the preponderance of eri- 
dence is greatly in favour of the form Abgar. 

Of the ten kings of Edessa who, according to 
the Chronicle of Dionysius of Telmahar (Assem. 
Ii. 0. \. 417, &C.), bore the name of Abgar, we 
have only to do with the last six. Before enu- 
merating them it will be as well to call atten- 
tion to the fact that the chronology of Dionysius, 
as has been shown by Gutschmid {Die Kdnigt- 
namen in den apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, in 
the Bhein. Mue. N. F. xix. 171), is faulty, and that 
his early dates are wrong by four years. The 
years of the last king, Ma'nCk IX., are to be reck* 
oned to his death, and not to the capture of 
Edessa by Caracalla; so that the dates of the 
last eight kings must be put forward about 21 
years. In addition to this, there is a gap of 17 
years between Abgar VI. bar Ma'nA and Abgar 
VII. bar Izat, during which period (a.o. 91- 
108) Edessa was held by the Parthians. 

The first king of the name was Abgar Phika, 
'* the dumb," who reigned with Bacro two years 
and 4 months, and by himself 23 years and 5 
months, in all 25 years and 9 months (d.c. 93- 
67). His son Abgar reigned 15 years (ij.c. 67- 
52), and is mentioned by Dion Cn^isius (xl. 20, 
Avyapot 6 *O^Poi)v6% or '0<rpoi\v6^) as having 
made a treaty with the Romans in the time of 
Pompey. He is the same who treacherously de- 
ceived Crassus in his expedition against the 
Parthians (B.C. 53), and is called by Appiaa 
{De BeU. Parth. p. 140), ^i&Aapxo' Twr "Apdhmv. 



In Plutarch {Cnu, 21) his name is written 
*Apiiftvi}f. The eleventh and twelfth kings of 
Edessa bore the same name, according to Dionysins 
(Assem. B. 0. i. 419X but nothing is recorded 
ef them except that the latter was sumamed 
Sumoko, " the red." We now come to the one 
with whom the name is most conspicuously asso- 
ciated, the fifteenth king, Abgar surnamed 
(Jcomo, ^ the black," who reigned, according to 
the chronology of Dtonysius of Telmahar, from 
A.O. 9 to A.D. 46 ; but, according to the recti- 
fication of Gutschmid, from A.o. 13 to a.d. 50. 
Moses of Chorene (in Bay^r, Hid, Osrh, p. 97) 
traces his descent from the Parthian king Ar- 
saces. Procopius has a story (Bell. Pert. ii. 12) 
•f the romantic attachment which he excited in 
Augustus when on a risit to Rome, and of the 
device he was obliged to employ before the em- 
peror would allow him to return to Edessa. The 
narrative of Eusebius (see Cureton's Anc, Sj/r, 
DocianerUa)^ though professedly derived from no 
less an authority than the archives of Edessa, is 
in all probability equally apocryphal. He tells 
^ff. E. i. 13) how Abgar, suffering from an in- 
curable disease, heard of the fame of Christ's 
miracles, and wrote the famous letter entreating 
him to leave the unworthy Jews and to take up 
his abode with him. The reply of Christ pro- 
mised that after his ascension one of his disciples 
should be sent to heal his disease, and to give 
life to him and his. Accordingly Thomas, one of 
the twelve, sent Thaddeus, one of the seventy, 
who came and dwelt with Tobias, the son of 
Tobias. The fame of his miracles soon reached 
the ears of Abgar, who recognised in him the 
promised messenger. He sent for Tobias, and 
commanded him to bring before him his distin- 
guished guest. On the following day Thaddeus 
was ushered into the presence of the king, who 
was surrounded by the nobles of his court. As 
soon as he entered, a mysterious halo about the 
apostle*s face was visible to Abgar alone, and the 
king, to the astonishment of all who stood by, 
bowed down before Thaddeus. The healing of 
Abgar, and of Abdu ben Abdu, a martyr to the 
gout, followed as a matter of course, as well as 
the preaching of Christianity by Thaddeus. In 
the later form of the legend, as recorded by 
Nicephorus (H. E. ii. 7), Abdu ben Abdu be- 
comes Audu, the son of Abgar. In Procopius 
(Bell, Pert. ii. 12), there is a still further con- 
fusion, and the gout of Abdu is transferred to 
Abgar. By the time the story reached Cedrenus 
it had become embellished with incidents still 
more marvellous. In his ffistoriae Compendium 
(p. 176) it is related that Abgar suffered from 
a complication of maladies, gout of long standing, 
and the black leprosy, by the latter of which he 
was so disfigured that he rarely allowed any one 
to see him. On receiving Christ's letter, sealed 
with the seven mysterious Hebrew characters 
which signified 6cov $ta$«if Baaifia 0«7ok, Abgar 
fell on his face before it and was straightway 
made whole. A slight trace of the leprosy alone 
remained in his face, and this was removed by 
the waters of baptism, which he received at the 
hands of the Apostle Thaddeus. In Cedrenus, 
too, we find the most elaborate story of the 
picture of the Saviour, and of its various for- 
tunes till it was transferred to Byzantium. 
Ananias, the swift courier who carried the letter 
«f Abgar, was also a painter, and endeavoured to 


take the portrait of Christ, but was dazzled 
the great splendour of His countenance. Whe 
upon our Lord, having washed His face, dried 
upon a linen cloth, on which was miraculou 
impressed the ims^e of His features. The cl< 
was taken to Edessa by Ananias, and was plai 
by Abgar in a niche over the city gate, whi 
formerly had stood the image of a Grecian g 
It was treated with reverence till the time of 
grandson, who relapsed into idolatry and i 
nounced his design of removing the .saci 
picture. The bishop, to prevent the sacrile 
placed a lamp in front of the picture, and > 
vered up the niche with a tile so that nothi 
could be seen. Five centuries afterwards, wl 
the Persians had been repulsed from the c 
through the influence of the divine picture, 
was discovered with the lamp still burning i 
fore it; and, wonderful to relate, by some strai 
photography a duplicate of the face had ht 
transferred to the tile which concealed it. i 
drenus then follows the fortunes of the picti 
to Byzantium. A more detailed, but equa 
veracious, account of the share which it had 
the repulse of the Persians under ChoeroM will 
found in Evagrius (iv. 27). It has been necessi 
to notice the mass of ecclesiastical fiction wh 
has grown up round the name of Abgar, thov 
it is beside the purpose of the present arti 
to discuss the genuineness of the famous letl 
which will be treated of elsewhere. [Thaddei 
The Syriac version of the story given in Curetc 
Anc. Syr, Documents is obviously an elabot 
expansion of Eusebius. In all probabilitr 
only fact in connection with Abgar whidi 
come down to us is to be found in the pages 
Tacitus (Ann. xii. 12-14), where he appears i 
not very creditable light, first seducing 
young Parthian king, Meherdates, to waste | 
cious days in luxurious indulgence at Edessa, i 
then treacherously abandoning him on the ba 
field (a.d. 49). The chronology of Dionyi 
would transfer the odium of this conduct to 
son, described by Procopius as a monster 
iniquity, who, fearing the vengeance of 
Romans, joined himself to Persia. But G 
schmid's correction fixes the stigma upon Ab| 

In addition to the other utterly untri 
worthy narratives of Abgar, we have one 
Moses of Chorene which introduces new elemc 
of fiction. In his Armenian history he telh 
how Abgar was king of Armenia, which in 
second year of his reign became tributary to 
Romans. He quarrelled with Herod, and 
ieated the army which was sent out aga 
him. On the accession of Tiberius, Abgar ] 
pared to throw off his allegiance, and built 
city of Edessa on the Euphrates. He establii 
Ardaches on the throne of Persia and assii 
Aretas in his struggle with Herod the Tetra 
During his campaign in Persia he had contra* 
an acute disease, on account of which when 
had heard of the miracles of Christ he wrote 
famous letter. The Empress Helena, in 
mass of fiction, is made the wife of Abgar, 
survived him and went to Jerusalem in the 1 
of Claudius, during the famine which Agi 
had predicted. For all this, and much more 
Cureton's Anc. Syriac J/ocumetUs. 

Abgar VI. bar Ma'n(i, according to Dionyi 
reigned for 20 years (a.d. 65-85), which ( 
schmid reckons from A.D. 69-89. It mas) 


IU> Uif who. Id Ui« ChioDkl* of EdMn, U n- 
kul Is luTB built hlmieiri suiuolauTii (A. S«L 
400, A.D. 88), ud Bot bii tacce—at M AMcnutii 
mji(,B.0.i.*2l). TbtdynutjnoiriMiiutahkrc 
AtMfmi, mnd the dhI king, Abgmr VIL bartw, 
■In pBTctiiiHd tfai klagdom ttota Iht Puthiwi 
{Smitt, L ■. i>i^t4) ud rcigntd A.D. 108-11.', 
«■ of tlH rojil noc of Adiiben. It vu this 
Utgtx, in all probabililf , who b«b*Toit with lach 
m tM« whtB TnJAB nude hu eipcdttioD to th? 
Eat. AccsHioE to Dio Cwiu (lirlil. 18, 21). 
kadM Bot go in ptnon lo n»et the £mpcrar nt 
latiadi, but eent him gifU ud rriendlr me-- 
■CM, He wu sfnid ofTniui on the one hei,.! 
•^ of tb« Puthiui OD the other, ud therelb; .: 
Uenod fail meeting vith Tnju till he cUD* u> 
U«M, whuv bo cBlcrtiiaed him at ■ t>u<|uet. 

■ of hi* 



an tbt Abgu vfnt out to ia*et Tnji 
^piwcbad the dty, taking with him 2U> horKj.. 
iM eoate of mul, and 60,000 jiTtliiu ; hiji 
Tt^jaa vooid obIj uccpt thrve coeta of mail. 
wd b*(god bim to keep the mt. The mperDr 
na gnatlf taken wiih the Jintag Arbudts. 
Ii aeaMqwBH of the diecrepascj in the chru- 
asieu, Aenmani ii driien to loppoH that tbit 
AhfuofTnju'i time ni bie brother, Ma'iii^ 
k*r tut, aad tbat hii too Ma'na ia the Abgtr of 
lb* tim* of Antminiu Plna, who ii nxDtioDc.l 
Vf JbIIii* Capitalinua. It nppeare from Xiphi- 
Htm (Lie (I Man. C^ia. liTiii. 30), that Abg:ir 
M a cohaequeDt period reTolIod from Tnjaa, w\n 

Ufa Md bamt it to the graand. The Acta ,,{ 
IhirbU, printad in C'Dreloa'i Anc Sj/r. Docu^ 
■fata, are referred to thia raign. 

Tbo Ab|^ of the time of Antoninna Piui 
(Jilisi CapiL Vit. Aal. F. c 9) mnat be Ma'hi^ 
W Ha'ad, aa Aawmui anggMta. Of bim 
IteBTiina nlalea, that litar rngning 23 yuia 
kc went airer to the Romaoi, hia throne wiis 
KCBpied bf VU lur Sahrn for two vean, aud 
thai then he wM rcatored and reigned 12 jretri 
laagrr. Ta him Beyer allribotae the atorf toid 
br Pnxopiiu of Abgar Ucamo ud Anguatui. 
Bii aoa. Abgar Vill. bar Uaaft, wbo reigo^vt 
rroan a.Ii. tT6 W 313, La the "Penarom rei " uf 
thai nane who. according M Aelloa Spartianua 
(>"J. .•^. c. 18). wai conqoerad by Sei 



Heme to hare BHodaled with himaeJf in in« 
(Ingdom bia >on Ma'uA during the hut year and 
icTeD moDiha of hia reign. Under him waa held 
the oooDcil at Oerboene of 18 biahnpa to decide 
the 1::uUt ConlroTeny (Rnb*, SpicikgiiBa, L 
316). Valeaioa believed him to har* been th« 
lame who reigned at Edeaaa In the time ofCara- 
alla (note in Dion. Cocc, p. 747). Dlo Caiaiiu 
reUtea (ap. Xiphil. tiirii. 12} that he reigned 
:ru«Uy, ud waa entrapped by Catacalla, who 
fiut him in chalna and Utok poaaeaaion ofOarhoeDe. 
It waa dnring hia reign Ihat the great fiood 
happeoed >t gdeaea, which i* deacribed in the 

(Auem. B. 0. i. 3ao>. Hetuming to theChroniclc 

of Dionyaiua, v< find thit Abgar 3»»erm waa 

■ ucoeeded by hia aon Ua'nQ, who reigned 2S yeara. 

If thi> be cormt, It would bring the date of th* 

Abgar bar Ma'nQ, whom Gntachmid Ignorea, 

lin the period of Gordianui 111. (a.d. 238- 

242). Thenameof AbgiirDccunoaacolnofthat 

■ 1 auppoeed lo hare been jtrnck 

wme victory orer Ihr Parthiana 

COmo, -Viuil Imp. Rom. p, 43T> [W. A. W.) 

ABGAB, LETTER 07. [Th^ddedi.] 

ABIBAB(wriIten3laoAbibn>> Accordiugta 

tbe itory, the aecond and RiTourit* aon of Gama' 

liel.who in yon th waa a companion nf hia father'* 

pDpil, Saul of Taraua, and Afterwarda wu bap- 

tiied by St Peter and St. John. One Luciuu* 

(A.D. 415) aaw a Tiaion of Qamaliel, who re- 

body of hie eon. with olber 

hju AgtmtL 
X,pbil. iHr. 1) I, 
be.»g.d Niaibia, bi 
It u d- ■ 

r {!>, 

14) call 
■ordint! to Dio Caaaioa (»[ 
Oarhoeni had rerolled ai^ 
were defeated by Seven i' 

of the relation between SeTeru* aiid 
Abgar. Herodian (liL 9 | 4) deecnbea him u i. 
king of tbe Oirhoeni who (oak refuge wirh 
Seitrua. broaght a large nnmber of irchara la 
hia aaaiatanca, ud Ifft hit children with him aa 
pledgee of hia lideiitr. H< waa a Chrialk.i, 
(Jaliiia Afrlcanaa ctootad by Georgia* Syncellm 
a.D. 21SX »<■ •* le^rn from Eplphiniua(//iier,!. 
Ui.) that bardeaaaea w*a on Intimate tenoa wlih 
hia. fiardataDe* himaelf (£uMb. fnieji. Et. r. 
lb) aan that Abgar made e law forbidding any 

pain of haring hia handa cat off. He apjiean, to 
fcr aa may he gathered from u alluaion In Dio 
laa*iBa(ap. XiphU. laiii. 18X to han gana to 
Km*, tai U, hare bad a brilliut reception gi'fu 
kiB hj Sararua. Attbougb io tbe libmuda uf 

u laid. From 

r, giving ^ 

riilon, we learn about Ibia Ahlbaa: 
Lacian. d< Sttfli. g 3 iq. In AuguaL Op. vil. 
ipp. p. 7 aq. Comp. PhoL BlbL 171. [L.] 

101, 'kitlKm, Meliaa, kc. and perhapa repra- 
Qla the Utin Ari7.'iu (Vatea. on Eiue'b. H. E. 
\. 44). The fint biahop ADolaDU*, alto bore a 

ed. 1885; Hell; 

Tillemont tl. 44, &r. AbUlua i* 

on Feb. 22 (of. Ckrm. Oritni. p. 90, 


ABLABIUS CA|3Adfliai\ often written Ab- 
lavlaa In Latin, a aomewhat bmoua pref^ of the 
praetoriura, A.D, 328-337, nnder ConsUnliH 
and Conatanliua. He waa deponed ud pot to 
death by the latter (Tillemont HiMt. Jii Emp. It. 
218 eq., 313). In 314 Conttantiae writea lo on* 
Ablabiua, who holdi aome command in Africa 
and i* apjiarently » " ' ' 

•. p. 21, 

I Dona 
: An««. 

Ubb. Con'-. 1. 1421. ThU la auppued t 
the Ablabiiu In quettion, aflerwarda prereci 
of the pnialurium (Tillemont MAn. EccL tI. 
p. 4<i). See alao the edict ifa tpt$CBpali jwUcia, 
profeaeing to be addrrued lo him br Conatan- 
line. Cod. Thfod. ri. P. i. p. 3;i9 ed. CathofHd., 
with hia note*, ud the ludei tL ii. p. 3S, a. T. 
AbUvlu*. tM 


" fuU of >11 miuiiHr of wickedMM," wu enmnt 
■moog the Stthian Ophitn (Eplph. Hatr. Hi C). 
It li protably the apoerj-piid work under 
Abrshun'i Dnina coDdemDed hy Nicephomr 
(CredDtr, Zur Gir-lt. d. KaiuHu 121, US) : the 
ieogth U rather orer Ihat uaigned to CaDticles, 
AOreek Ttilament c^Abraiam (itaat in MS. at 
Vieniia (Fabricim, Cod. P*. K T. ill f.) appean 
to be of much later date. [U. j 

ABBAHAH, wrillcD alsoAbnuun.Abbrum, 

(1\ Bi^op af Sklel'CU, patriarch, and kiiu- 
man of Jamei, tbc brother of our Lord; of 
whom it {i maid that he quieted a persecutioD 
niMd against the Chriitiaiu b/ the king of 
Penia, by casting a doril out of tb* king'a 
•00. He died, acL-ordiug to Amru, A.D. 152, 
but thi> li probably an error (Auem. B, 0. ii. 
S9b ; iii. H12). A poem, quoted bj Autmani, in 
which the naiutt of the patriarch! of the Eait 
are enumerated, ealla him Abraham of Caaotr or 
tiuhcnr {lb. il. 389), and placei him third in the 
Mat. According to another accoont, ha died in 
the 2Snd jear of hia epiacopate, A.D. 120 (A. iii. 
61S), and wai buried at Sclencia. [W. A. W.] 

(S) (Cfrcniii), writtMi Abmaniei, a Sjrian 
hermit of the 4th ccaturv, ailerwardn biihop 
of CaRBHAB (Haran), in Menpotamia (Theodt. 
PAiMtmt, c. IT). Krom hii cell in the deiert 
of Chaictdice, near Antioch (Theodt. Jtitt. ir. 28, 
Nicephor. Nitl. xl. *i\ he went diigniied an a 
pedlar to cooTcrt the inhabitant* of Lebanou ; 
and, though opposed and peraecuted at fint, 
ancceeded trealuall)' in hii purpois. At the 
end of three years, haying penuaded the people 

cell, but vai inbicqueDtlj prerailed upon, mntt 
unnilliDgly, to become Bishop of Carrbae. Eren 

life, u that, for a time, he lost the use of hit 
Ii 01 ba through hueiceuiTefaitio^. Hiifarewaa 
ODlf vegetable!; he abstained eren from bread 
and water ; but, though so aerere to himself, he 
waa hoipiubia to atraogers. H* was held in 
great reverence by the emperor and his fwnilj 
(Theod. PAilM. c 17). Perhaps this is the 
Abraames, of whom it is recordM that his re- 
tirement from the world waa so complete, that 
be continuad, for >om« time alter the Council of 
Nicaea, to keep Easter aHer the old reclioning, 
in ignoranco of the decree which had been 
made (Theodt. P&iiotA. c 3> Set Ad. SS. Boil. 
Feb. M. p. G. S.] 

(8) Bishop of BaTHaE, In Osrboenc near the 
Euphrates, was a corrupondent of St. Basil, who 
addressed a letter to him (cir. A.t>. 373) while 
he waa living In the house of Satuminus the 
ilioch (Basil, fp. Vi'i [315]). Vnri- 

hi* parents, t 


'bo were wealthy Inhabitants 

but deserted his bride on the wedding-day, ai 

f>om the city. After the denth of hia parent 
twelve yean aflerwardi, he entrusted sll his pr 
perty to a friend, for the poor, devoting himself 
the life of an anchorite. SubMquently, against b 

the bishop aa a missionary to a neighbouring vi 
lag) of idolaters. Ther* ha destroyed the ido 
with his own hands, and, chiefly through the e: 
traordinary patience with which he bore the 
persecution, effected the conversion of the inhabit 
ants. After building a church for tbem, he di 
serted hia flock aa he had deaerted his wile, an 
retired to his cell, to their great sorrow. Durio 
the fifty yean of his seclusion he never tasted eve 
bread, living entirely on vegetables, never changs 

yet is said to have been hale and vigorous to Ih 
last. It is reoorded of him, aa of other sol 
tariea, that he eiperienced peculiar temptation 
of Satan. He was always bewailing his ow 
faults, hut gentle and tolerant to others (i 
Ephr. Syr. A.1a S. Abr.). When his niec« h* 
beeD seduced from bim by a profligate monk, h 
sought her in vain for two years, and, at lail 
having disgnLied himself as a solJItr, found urn 
reclaimed her from her abandoned life. He i 
commemorated by the Greek Church on the !9tl 
of October; by the Latin Church on the 16th o 
March. [I. G. 8.] 

(fi) Keatorian Bishop of Blth-RabaN in He 
uia, cir. A.D. 489 (Aasem. B. 0. 1. 204, 35;i). H. 
studied sacred literature in the school at Edeasa 
but was eipelled. Amru calls him a disciple o 
Narses, and saya that he flourished under Ih 
Emperor Jnstin the Younger, A.D. S^.V-STS 
(Asiem. B. 0. Iii. 71> He waa head of tb 
monastery of Belh-Rsban {lb. 1S.'>, 255, 46S 
47ti), and wrote commentaries on the Books o 
Joshua, Judges, Kings, Ecclesiasl>cu^ Isaiah 
the twelve minor prophets, Daoiel. and Solomon' 
SoBK,be»idesvariouspo*ms(/4.71). Sabarjeso 
■ " - ' ■ 'ife (lb. 455, 4Ha) 


ntly the 

le with i 

disciple of Manes, w 
Abraham of Cascar (/I. ill. 15S> [W. A. W.] 
(8) Of Cascar, called the Grtat (Asstm. fi. 
iii. 154, 467), a 

d (cir. 

>. 502) under Bebi 


a the I 

i been 

laying tl 



u at Satnosata, 
It (vL 578) con- 

jocturet that he 

•ecutions. Hia nnmt appears wiin inoee oi Bieie- 
tius, Easebins, Basil, and others in the letter 
which the biihop* of the East addressed to those 
of Ilalv and Qaui, A.D. 372 (Basil. Ep. 92 [139]). 
Ha was pment at the Council of Constantinople 
b 381 (Labb. Cme. 11. 955). [W. A. W.l 

(4) St. (4th century), waa one of tha moat 
flunoDi among the disciples of Ephrem Syru* 
" tiU.ia,aiidNiceph.ifMl.ix.ia). By 

Seieucia, the patriarch of the Nestorians (ii. 40S) 

quotes {H. 0. Iii. ISs' 431), he studied at Htsibh 
in company with another Abraham the discipli 
of Narses. He afterwards removed to Hirta, 
where heconverted the inhsbilnnts from idolatrj, 
and thence to Jeruulcm. Egvpt, and UoudI 
Sinni. where he received the benediction of the 
monks. The life of him, wrillen by John and 
Rustam, wnlch le quoted by Thomas of Marga 
(8. 0. iii. 93), tells us that he retired into Ibe 
desert of Scete, and adopted there the monasUi 
dress; that he afterwards by divine command 
came and dwelt in a retired cave on Mount llla, 
near Niiibis, and thence spread monastic dl*> 
cipline among the Negtorians. He established 

quired the title of lather of the Assyrian monlM 
(R O. iii. 147, 155). He died in Haia or Adtx 

bene, and his body wu Ukea to Cascar (/A. 639^ 


R vwaft«rwmrds thrown into theTij^^ by ocnb- 
■aKlortheOi]iphMotawakel(/6.510>. Besides 
tk life of hina already mentioned, there is another 
W Tbomaa of Marga, and a work by Babaeua 
the Archimandrite upon Abraham of Nisibis, is 
MppsMd by Asaemani to refer to Abraham of 
C^Mtr (/ft. 97). He wrote letters, expositions, 

• oMBBentary on the whole of the Dialectics of 
Ahftotle (/&. 154), and drew up rules for the 
pnrtnmient of the monks {fb. 342, 351). Theo- 
4ontt, bishop of Mam, sMaks of him with praise 
is t poem (/6. 147)l Two miracles are attri- 
kotel to him ; one that he raised from the dead 
t^ daughter of a citizen of Nisibis, the other 
tka be drore away a flight of locusts with holy 
wt«r (/*. 155> [W. A. W.] 

ABRANUS (St.X an Irish missionary, one of 
tile brothers of St. Tressanus who went as mis- 
uosaries from Ireland to Reims, at the begin- 
lioz of the 6th century. (Colgan, Acta SS, 
Bienuae. p. 275.) [H. B.] 

ABRA8AX (;ii»pmffJ^, 'ASpa^df), I. In the 
Builidian system described by Irenaens (101 f.) 
"the nnbegotten Father** is the progenitor of a 
kHcs of powers, the last of whom create " the 
£rst keaTen.** They in turn originate a second 
Kries. who create a second heaven. The process 
epBtianes in like manner till 365 heavens are 
a existence, the angels of the last or risible 
keavea being the authors of our world. ** The 
raler** Iprincipem, ue, probably rhw ipxofnra] of 
the 365 heavens ** is Abraxas, and for this reason 
b« coataios within himself 365 numbers." Sub- 
itsatially the same account is given by Epipha- 
iittft {Hoer, 69, 73 f.X who appears to follow 
psrtir Irenaens, partly the lost Compendium of 
HippOlytos (R. A. Lipsius, Zur QwrUenkntik d, 
LfsXaMttu 99 f.) He designates Abrasax more 
dtstiactly as " the power above all, and First 
Friadple," ** the cause and first archetype " of 
sii things ; and mentions that the Basilidians 
referred to 365 as the number of parts (jitKri) 
ii the human body, as well as of days in the 
TUT. The author of the appendix to Tertul- 
iua /V rrae9cr, liner, (c. K\ who likewise fol- 
Wvi Uifipolytus's Compendium (Lipsius 33 f. 
Ar.K adds some further particulars ; that 

* Abraxas* gave birth to Mind (rovvX ^h« ^rs^ 
ra the series of primary powers enumerated 
lic'vite by Irenaens and Epiphanius ; that the 
»<-rll, as well as the 365 heavens, was created 
U himour of * Abraxas ;' and that C*hrist was 
»ftt not by the Maker of the world but by 
'Atraxas.' More on the doctrines here referred 
t« viU be found under Basiudes. 

Thus £»r we are dealing with authorities who 
i^v no acquaintance with the doctrines of 
Bs»ilidc« himself fBASiUDEs]. The name occurs 
Wwever in the KtfyUaiioH of aU Hrregiet (vii. 
24) by Hippolytns, who appears in these chap- 
ters to have followed the Kxmjetica of Basil ides. 
AAer de»cribing the manifestation of the Gospel 
u the Ogtload and Hebdomad, he adds that the 
BtailidiaAM have a long account of the innumer- 
sbW creations and powers in the several * stages' 
•f the upper world (Statfr^fiaraX in which they 
t^mk, of 365 heavens and say that ** their great 
tftao* " is Abrasax, because his name contains 
tat aanihcr 365, the number of the days in the 
J«sr (the passage is corrupt, but thus much is 
clivj; U. tha awn of th« oombtra denoted by 



the Greek letters in ABPA2AB is 365. The 
whole passage is a parenthesis interrupting a 
long sentence ; and the plural form of the refe- 
rences (uror* avTovr twice, ^AaKovaC) seems to 
indicate a doctrine of Basilidians rather than of 
Basilides, though the usage of Hippolytus is not 
consistent enough in this respect to be quite 
decisive. Hence Uhlhom (^Das Btmlid, System^ 
26, 65 f.) infers that Abrasax is foreign to the 
original system of Basilides. Gn the other hand 
it might be urged that the occurrence of words 
characteristic of Basilides (* stage,' * great 
archon ') implies the Exegetica to have been 
Hippolytus's authority throughout ; and the 
contents of the parenthesis might be taken as 
explanatory of " all things in the Hebdomad.** 
Yet it is very difficult to bring the representa- 
tion here given into intelligible connexion with 
the proper scheme of Basilides, either as forming 
a part of it or as coextensive with the whole ; 
and the name itself does not harmonize with the 
rest of his terms. Its introduction is therefore 
probably due to the eclectic»m of disciples ; and 
the intermixture of language in the passage of 
Hippolytus may be supposed to arise from an 
attempt to combine and adjust information fVom 
two sources. Epiphanius {Ifaer. 90 f.) states 
that the Phibionite *Gnostici' (Gphites) recog- 
nised 365 archons; but he connects no mystic 
name with the number. 

Nothing can be built on the vague allu- 
sions of Jerome, according to whom * Abraxas ' 
meant for Basilides **the greatest God*' {De 
tir, ill. 21), " the highest God " {Dial. adv. 
Lucif. 23X "the Almighty God" {Comm, in 
Amos iii. 9), and ** the Lord the Creator" {Comm. 
in Xah. i. 11). The notices in Theodoret {ffaer, 
Fitb. i. 4), Augustine {Hrer. 4), and *Praedes- 
tinatus ' (i. 3X have no independent value. 

II. A vast number of engraved stones are in 
existence, to which the name * Abraxas-gems ' 
has long been given. The subjects are mytholo- 
gical, and chieHy grotesque, with various inscrip- 
tions, in which ABPASAB otien occurs, alone or 
with other words. Sometimes the whole space 
is taken up with the inscription. In certain 
obscure magical writings of Egyptian origin 
iifipa^ds or ikfipatrd^ is found associated with 
other names which frequently accompany it on 
gems (Reuvens, lA^tt. h It. Letronne s. /. Pap, 
biitrufU'Sy etc., Leyden, 1830). The meaning of 
the legends is seldom intelligible : but some of 
the gems are amulets ; and the same may be the 
case with nearly all. In a great majority o( 
instances the name Ahras ix is associated with a 
singular composite figure, having the head of a 
cock or hawk, the arms of a man (bearing, the 
one a whip or more rarely a dagger, and tno 
other a small round shieldX and the breast of a 
man in a cuirass, from below which diverge two 
serpentine legs. The name I A A, to which 
SABAAB is sometimes added, is found with this 
figure even more frequently than ABPA2AB, 
and they are often combined. 

In the absence of other evidence to shew the 
origin of these curious relics of antiquity the 
occurrence of a name known as Biisilidian on 
patristic authority has not unnatunilly been 
taken as a sufficient mark of origin, and the early 
collectors and critics assume<l this whole group 
to be the work of Gnostics. During the last two 
oanturies attempts have been made to sift away 



saocettiyely those genu which had no claim to 
be considered in anf sense Gnostic, or specially 
Basil idian, or connected with AWawax ; but with 
little success. Passerio (TAes. Gcmm, Aatri/,^ 
Flor. 1750, cited by Mutter in Herzog B,E, i. 
79) and Beausobre (Manich, it. 50-69) on the 
other hand questioned the whole theory; and 
though their scepticism has met with little 
farour, it appears to be well founded. While it 
would be rush to assert positively that no exist- 
ing gems were the work of Gnostics, there is no 
valid reason for attributing any of them to such 
an origin. The Basllidinns of the second century 
are said to have ** made use of magic [inferior 
MSS. substitute ** images "] and incantations 
and invocations and all other curious arts" 
(Iren. 102 : cf. Epiph. Naer. 69 D ; Philastr. 
JJfaer, 32); and incantations by mystic names 
are noticed by Jerome as characteristic of the 
hybrid Gnosticism planted in Spnin in the fourth 
century {Kp. Ixxv. 3 ; cxx. 10 ; on Is. Ixir. 4). 
It is therafore not unlikely that some Gnostics 
were addicted to the' use of amulets, though the 
conHdent assertions of modem writers to this 
effect rest on no authority. Beausobre properly 
calls attention to the significant silence of Clement 
in the two passages in which he instructs the 
Christians of Alexandria on the right use of rings 
and gems, and the figures which may legiti- 
mately be engraved on them (Pacd, 241 ff. ; 287 
ff.). But no attempt to identify the figures on 
ex lifting gems with the personages of Gnostic 
mythology has had any success, and Abnuax is 
the only Gnostic term found in the accompany- 
ing legends which is not known to belong to 
other religions or mythologies. The present 
state of the evidence therefore suggests, not that 
the gems inscribed with Abratax are of Basilidian 
origin, but that their engravers and the Basili- 
Jians received the mystic name from a common 
source now unknown. If this be true, the whole 
family of * Abraxas-gems ' has- probably no 
connexion with Gnosticism or any form of Chris- 
tliinity, and belongs rather to the mixed super- 
stitions which throve rankly on the shores of the 
Mediterranean during the decay of Paganism. 
Some parts at least of the figure above men- 
tioned are solar symbols (cf. Kopp, Falatogr, 
Crit, iv. 132 ff.; Bellermann, 53 ff.: but only 
a fraction of the evidence collected by these 
writers is |)ertinent and trustworthy) ; and the 
Basilidian Abrasax is manifestly connected with 
the sun. 

Hyginus {Fab. 183) gives Abrax Aslo Ther- 
beeo as names of horses of the sun mentioned 
by *Homerus.' The passage is miserably cor- 
rupt : but it may not be accidental that the first 
three syllables make Abraxa$, 

The literature of the subject is extensive, but 
of little value except for the figures. The 
leading treatises are L*Heureux*s [Macarii] 
Abraxa* mcu Apidopistua, edited by Chifilet, Ant- 
werp, 1657 ; Toi. ii. part ii. of Montfaucon*s 
Antiquite Expliquee ; Passerio (ut sup.); Jab- 
lonski, De Nofninia Abraxcu . . . aignificaiionef in 
OpuK. iv. 80 ff. Leyd. 1813 ; Bellermann, Ueber 
d. Gcnunen d. Aiten m. d. Abrcua^Ude^ Berlin, 
1817-9; Matter, Hiti, Crit.du Gno<ticisme,?&ns, 
1828 ; C. W. King, TAe Gnostics and their He- 
mains, London, 1864. 

Ul. The proper form of the name is evidently 
Abrasax^ ai with the Greek writers, Hippolytus, 


Epiphanius, Didymus (De Trin. iii. 42), 
ThcMxloret ; also Augiutine and ' Praedestinat 
and in nearly all the legends on gems. By a 
bably euphonic inversion the translator of Iren 
and the other Latin authors have Abraxas, w 
is found in the magical papyri, and even, the 
most sparingly, on engraved stones. 

The attempts to discover a derivation for 
name, Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, or other, have 
been successful ; and Basnage and Jablonski 
be right in maintaining its purely artif 
character. Yet we may with better re 
suppose that it came originally from a for 
mythology, and that the accident of its nun 
cal value in Greek merely caused it to be sin 
out at Alexandria for religious use. It is w 
notice that MEiePAS and NEIA02 have 
same value. The Egyptian author of the 1 
De Mysteriis in reply to Porphvry (vii 
admits a preference of ' barbarous to vem 
lar names (rdSr ixJior^ olictimw) in sacred thi 
urging a peculiar sanctity in the language 
certain nations, as the Egyptians and *A 
rians;' and Origen {Contra Cels. i. 24) refei 
the * potent names' used by Egyptian ss 
Persian Magi, and Indian Bnihmins, signif; 
deities in the several languages. 

If a fresh conjecture may be haxarded, 
widely spread Shemitio roots offer a prob 
etymology. Ab-razach probably, ab'zarach 
tainly, denotes 'the father of effulgence 
name appropriate to a solar deity. nT"1t i 
and miTi are cognate roots, expressing 
twin conceptions of a loud cry and the brea! 
forth of light. Movers (Phoen, i. 229) si 
that Serach was apparently a Phoenician n 
of Adonis, whose worship was connected i 
the seasons of the year (cf. Macrob. Sut, i, 
''Adonin quoque solem esse non dubitab 
inspecta religione Assyriorum, apud quos Vei 
fArchitidisf et Adonis maxima olim venei 
viguit, quam nunc Phoenices tenent'*), 
who had much in common with ' Jao ' (i6. 
ff.) ; and he mentions oAaciraA, ** the rising 
blazing sun," as ** an idol of the old Arab! 
according to the Camus," Chwolsohn {SSa 
ii. 281) observes that the root tarach, 
shine,* occurs oflen as a proper name among 
most different Shemitic races, as the J 
EJomites, Ethiopians, and Babylonians. We 
add the Assyrian deity Assarach and the pn 
matical Nisroch of 2 Kings xix. 37, Is. xx 
38, who loses the initial N in the better MS 
the LXX, and, what is yet more to the p 
becomes 'ApdffKiis in Josephus {Ant. x. i. 
Nor is the Persian extraction of Arsaces so 
tain as to preclude the suspicion that his n 
may have the same origin. Notwithstan 
the rarity of the forms in which the r prec 
the a, this various evidence shews how e 
Abt-asax may come from the name of a Shei 
god representing the sun, though the loo 
cannot at present be determined. [ 

ABBAXAS. [Abrasax.] 

ABRES, Bishop of Seleucia and patrii 
was ordained at Antioch. He was a pupi 
Mares and succeeded him. Bar Hebraeus re 
that he was descended from Joseph the 
penter, the father of James and Joses. A 
says that Abm was not ordained at Ant 
but at Jerusalem by St. Simeon, the sucoi 


ttSL JnoM tba QitBl (Ahms. B. 0. it. 395; 
li.<l!,612). [W. A.W.] 

Htb Buliop of TrcTiB, mcntioDcd bf Qngory of , 

Bu death liplwsd Id S5T. " 

. April S2. H* wu b 
aanh sf Sl Fialinu. Hii nlia 

I th( HcBUtcrr of SurinkinlK 

i. 30. 8L 



fnUilj Iht UEiH. 

t 1b Oan], Spain, stid AqaltsnU, tri- 
- I PriKll 

imiT I 

r. T0> 

[C. D.] 

I (cf. Au|. 

ABUNDICB, fourth BUiop of Ooxo, *50- 
««9. ■ aatin of ThHoloBicL Ha wu prwot 
■1 ibe CoDocil of CoututiDopla, 450 (USb*, ad. 
C(l«i, IT. 751) 1 (Dd tooh ao actWe part igalut 
tlif EotTchiaB htntj it the Conadl of Chalccdoo, 
win* he npnKnted Pope Leo. H« wu aftcr- 
*iid« prcKBt at a CoaDcil at UiUo, *i2, he)d 
teRfal* th* laine heraij (irchelli, /. S. t. 259, 
Lea U. £>. 97). The aathonbip of thr Tl Z>>um 
b ucribed ia aaoM MSS. to him (TillernoDt, 
M. E. »iii, M2> [W.] 

ABURGIUS (A3a'^T»'X » "I^ l^md and 
Mow omutrrman of St. Baail {Ep. S3, 7b, I4T, 
i:«, 19S, 304). He vaiapanonofhigh italion 
nd [Teat infloCDC* (Me Mp. Ep. 199), and bull 
Mn than eoca ioToked hii aid oo behalfof friendi 
■ tnmbU (£p. 75, U7, 17S> On one occaiioD 
kappeali t« him to anlit hit brother Gregor/ 
Uie bUxip (Sp. 33> Thii ii thought to U hii 
tiftftd Gregory Kailaaun and not hLi actual 
^Mh« Gregorr Njuen (Oaroier, Vlt. Baa. Op. 
iiL f. 1iiii> One oT iIibh lettvn to Abargiiu 
i£p. 19«>, tent when the writer couidFn him- 

Iht Ittten of Grrg. N'ai. (£>. 241, where the 
nine ii read 'ABory^), and periwpt aught not 
U U Maigned to BaaiL [L.} 

ACACIUS CAa^ut), alio writUa AcATiUI 
ladAL-HaTiL-i IB Latin. 

(1) AbufaopfuidtobeofADtiaeblDl^rirgla) 
l»l ronfator according to hii Asia (Ruiu ' 
I1S-14'2>. but maitjr ateordlng to the mart 
•kpn { JfflUM Uarcb 31, Rab. Mmr. March '. 
*cX also called AgalAoiaii-itlui or AgalKmifti 
mitr DeciBi, ^D. S50; iometiinei coolbuDded 
>Hh Aociua, Biihop of Melittn* in Armiaii 
il Ih* 5th ontar;: lea TillimoDt if. E. iii. 
y S,-.7. [A. W. H.] 

(1) Bbhop of CiEcaKEa, frorn a panooil de- 

vlth ■kllAiUy chotcD arablguitr oflangiuge, and 
tdroitlf chaaglDg them when it was to hi* 
vtnnlage to do ». After the death oT Euebini 
i! Kicomedii, c 343, he became the hea.1 of tb* 
sDrtljr Arian party, and la Ihongbt bj ume to 
e Iho penon ityled bjOng.Nai. (I>al.iil. 21) 
the toogna of the Ariani," Oeorn of Cippa* 
ocia being ^ tha hand." Hii diipute with 
Cyril had iti origin in a qu»tlnn of prec*- 
lance. He (Milled Patrophilu* and the other 
blihopa of hli prorince In cooiecratlng Cyril. a.D. 
351, and in aeoordani:* with the 7tb Nlcene 
non he claimed a right of priority ibr the 
itTopoliticnl He of Caeiana OTer that of Jern- 
lalem. Tfal* Cyril refiued to yield. Aaimoeity 

lual accDaationi'of nuouDdnesi in tha thlth. 
Acacini, lieing anpparted by the PileatiDian 
' 'ihopa, depoi«t Cyril od friroloni grooDdi, ind 
:pelled hira from Jenualtm, a.D. 358. The 
lit year, i.D. 35B, at the Council of aeleucia, 
Cyril anceeaafully appealed agaioit (he lentence 
lad waa reitored tohii lee; but at the Srnod of 
Conitantiuople, a.i>. 3<J0,the iuHuencrof Acaciua 
with Conatantiua enabled him again to procure 
the depoeitioQ of hii adTenary, who wu leat 
into eiile until the death of the kjnperor [Ctril 
or jEttUULtiM.] (SoLir. 25; Theodt. 11. 26.) 

Acaciui took a prominent part io tha theo- 
logical coutroverAiee of the period, alternately 
depoilDg and bring depoMd by hia adTerurlea. 


. 5), when 

I the p 

refully e 

■11 n 

). 341 

1 of "Snh. 

bifnpher of Eiuebioi, the Church hlitorian. 
H* in-YMded hii muter u bishop, a.d. t 
liKt. II. E. il 4; Sol H. E. ill. 2). He 
iBietly kuawa to na u the bitter and uncomp 
feuiaf adreraaiy of Cyril of Jeruuleoi, ind 
tke l•^kle^ of the Intrlgnlng band of imbilii 
fnlii» with whom truth wu eecoudiry to 

»i4t omplele type. Tieeieatt of hl> lift ahow 
Icadoa to haTe been a man of ^ml intellectual 
ihiliiy asd little honeity. reaJy in action, elo- 
\9tai in apeecb, inbtle in argument, and un> 
trrupulnoi aa to the meant by which he aecnred. 
IB e»li ; with DO deep coniielion* on the great 
nbjKti of coatroreny, cooseaJiDg hit reai riewi 

party be wu depoaed it 
the Conocil of Sardica, a.d. 347. Th>'y refuieJ 

Philippopolii, where they held a couucil of their 
own, and revenged ttaemaelves by anatbrmatii- 
ing and depoaing their depoeen, Including Pope 
Jnliui and Hotiui of CordoTa (Theodl. ii. 2d ; 
Socr. ii. Idi Soi. ilL 14; Labb. Cone. ii. 625- 
699). According to Jerome ( I'Vr. HI. 9S), hU 
inliuence with (he emperor CoDttantint wu con- 
tiJerable enough to nominate Felii (the Anti- 
pope) to tha i« of Rome at the full of Liberiui, 
A.D. 357. Acaciut look a leading place among 
the intriguing prelstee, whoaucceeded In aplit- 
ting ioto two tha Oecumeniaii Council which 

nullifying ita authority. While the WeKern 

and his brethren of the tjut gathered at .Seleu'ria, 
where he headed a turbulent perty, called ell^r 

the majority of II " " ' ' ' ' 

firmed tl 

le Uedici 

dof A] 


Scripture," and inithemaliiing the term "Ano- 
moeoo." butdiitinilly confeuing the "likeneu" 
of tba Son (0 the Father. Thit formuU the 
temi-Ariin majority rejected, and becoming ei< 
upenitad by the diiingenuouiuFu of Aoiciui, 
who iulerpreled (he " likenee* of the Sun to the 



Kcnk T^r fio6kfi<rir lUvow, and reftiMd to be 
judged hj his oirii publitfh«l writings (Socr. and 
Soz. /. c.\ they proceeded to depose him and his 
adherents. Acacins and the other depoMd pre- 
lates flew to Constantinople, and without delay 
laid their complaints before the Emperor. The 
adroit Acacius soon gained the ear of the weak 
Constantios, and finding that the faToar he had 
shown to the bold blasphemies of Aetios had to 
some degree compromised him with his roral 
patron, he had no scrapie in throwing orer his 
former ftiend, anathematizing his doctrines, and 
acquiescing in his degradation and banishment. 
A new council was speedily called at Constanti- 
nople, of which Acacius was the soul. The 
proceedings were arranged by his skill, while 
the numerous letters and documents it sent 
forth were the product of his fncile pen (Phi- 
lostorg. iv. 12). It was mainly through his 
intrigues that the Council was brought to accept 
the Confession of Rimini, and that this heretical 
formula was enforced on the acceptance of the 
Church, when, in Jerome's strong words, *' the 
whole world groaned and wondered to find itself 
Arian" {Dial. adv. Luc. 19). To complete their 
triumph, he and Eudoxius of Antioch, then Bishop 
of Constantinople, put forth all their influence to 
bring the edicts of the Nicene Council, and all 
mention of the Homoousion, into disuse and obli- 
rion (Soz. iv. 26). On his return to the East in 
361, Acacius and his party sought to fortify 
themselves by the consecration of new bishops to 
the ya<»nt sees. Among these Meletius was nomi- 
nated to the see of Antioch, in the hope that, as 
he had not hitherto declared any very decided 
opinions on the great point of controversy, grati- 
tude for hli elevation would lead him openly to 
advocate these doctrines. In this they were mis- 
taken, and Acacius revenged himself for the error 
bv the usual course of deposition and banishment 
(§ocr. ii. 44; Soz. ii. 26 ; Theodt. ii. 27). [Me- 
letius]. In spite of his publicly declared opposi- 
tion to the Nicene doctrines, when the imperial 
throne, which had been occupied by the seroi- 
Arian Constantius, was filled by the orthodox 
Jovian, Acacius with his friends found it con- 
venient to change their views; and when the 
emperor was residing at Antioch in 363, they 
voluntarily accepted the Nicene Symbol, and 
handed in a document expressing their adherence 
to it; "thus," as the philosopher Theroistius 
sarcastically observed, "evidencing that they 
worshipped the purple and not the Deity** (Socr. 
iii. 25). On the accession of the Arian Valens, 
in 364, if Socrates does not do him injustice, 
Acacius once more went over to the more power- 
ful side, and made common cause with the Arian 
Eudoxius (Socr. iv. 2). But he found no favour 
with the Council of Macedonian bishops that 
met at lAmpsacns, and his deposition at Seleucia 
was confirmed. This is the last time history 
mentions him. According to Baronius, three 
years after this Acacius was removed by death 
beyond the possibility of further change, A.D. 366. 
Acacius was a patron of literature as well as a 
copious writer. He enriched with parchments 
the library at Caesarea founded by Pamphilus 
(Hieron. Ep. ad Marcailani, 141). He wrote 
copioujily on Ecclesiastes, and 6 books offf^fifutcra 
(qr^ifiaTo^ besides many various treatises ; a fi^agment of his 'AvriKoyla against 
Marcellus of Ancyra is preserved by Epiphanius, 


ffaer. 72. 6-9. His life of his master Eusebius 
hat unhappily perished. See Fabricius B. G. vii. 
p. 336 ; ix. p. 254, 256 (ed. HarlesaX Tillemont, 
Mem. Eocl. vi. (jkusim). [K. V.] 

(8) A presbyter of Beroea, who visits St. 
Basil about A.D. 375, bringing a favourable 
report of the monastic life there, Basil Ep. 220. 
Basil writes to him and others (among whom 
the name Paulus occurs) condoling with them on 
the loss of their monastery, which had been 
burnt by the heretics, £p. 256. Thb is doubt- 
less the same Acacius who, in conjunction with 
Paulus, writes to Epiphanius urging him to 
compose a work on heresies; for the two are 
described as presbyters and archimandrites ot 
monasteries in the regions of Chalcis and Beroea 
in Coele Syria. The letter is prefixed to the 
Panarium, which was the response to this 
appeal, Epiphan. Op. i. p. 3; see Tillemont 
X. p. 805. He is probably the same with the 
next (4). [L.] 

(4) Bishop of Beroea, in Syria, c. a.d. 379- 
436. He was apparently a Syrian by birth, and 
in his early youUi adopted the ascetic life, and 
entered the monastery of Gindarus, near Antioch, 
then governed by Asterius (Theodt. Vit Pair. c. 2). 
Unless he may be identified with the last men- 
tioned Acacius (as seems highly probable), not 
much is known of this period of his life. He 
appears, however, to have been prominent as a 
champion of the Orthodox faith against the 
Arians, fh>m whom he sufiiered (B^luz. NiW. 
Collect. Cone. p. 746^ and it is especially men- 
tioned of him that he did great service in bring- 
ing the hermit, Julianus Sabbas,fh>m his retire- 
ment to Antioch to confront the members of 
thb party who had falsely claimed his support 
(Theodt. VU. Pair. 2, H. E. iv. 24). We find 
him in Rome, probably as a deputy from the 
Churches of Syria, when the Apollinarian 
Heresy was treated before Pope Damasus (IVa- 
luz. Condi, 763). After the return of Eusebius 
o( Samosata from exile, A.D. 378, he was conse- 
crated to the see of Beroea (the modem Aleppo) 
by that prelate (Theodt. H. E. v. 4). As bishop 
he did not relax the strictness of his asceticism, 
and like Ambrose (August. Confes*. vi. 3) throw- 
ing the doors of his house open to every comer 
he invited all the world to witness the purity and 
simplicity of his life (Soz. H. E. vii. 28). He 
attended the Council of Constantinople in 381 
(Theodt. V. 8). The same year, on the death ot 
Meletius, he took a leading part in the ill-advised 
consecration of Flavian to the bishopric of An- 
tioch [Flavianus]. This was in direct violation 
of the compact between Paulinus and Meletius, 
and, as perpetiuiting the unhappy Eustathian 
schism, was looked upon with well-grounded 
displeasure both in East and West ; and Acacius 
and those who acted with him were cut ofi* from 
communion with the Church of Rome (Soz. vii. 
11). The death of Paulinus in 388, followed 
speedily by that of Evagrius, whom the dyiug 
bishop had weakly appointed as his successor, 
removed the chief obstacle to reconciliation. The 
Council of Capua, at the close of 391 or 393, re- 
ceived Acacius again into communion, together 
with the prelates of Flavian*8 party (Ambros. 
Ep. 9; Labbe, Cone. ii. 1072). The admission 
of Flavian himself caused more difficulty. Aca- 
cias, who, though 76 years old, had been deputed 
with Isidore of Alexandria to convey to Popo 


Siridns, in 39S, the inteUigence of ChfTSMtom's 
dectioo to th« see of Constantinople, received 
ewncst injanctions from that prelate to do all 
he could to remore the prejudice from the Pope's 
Bind. His advocacy was strengthened by the 
long white hair that marked his venerable age, 
and the reverent mildness of his aspect. He fully 
sncoeeded in his object, and returned to Syria bear- 
ing letters of oommnnion not only from Rome, but 
aiM from Theophilus and the Egyptian bishops. 
The whole merit of the success was not unjustly 
escribed by the bishops of the East to *' their 
Other" Acacius (Socr. vi. 9 ; Sos. viii. 3 ; Theodt. 
V. 23 ; Labbe, Cone, iii p. 391 ; Pallad. p. 39> 

The beginning of the 5th century saw Acacius 
one of the most implacable of the enemies of 
Chrysoetom. Palladius traces the animosity to 
his discontent at the insufficient hospitality he 
had received when Chrysoetom*s guest at Con« 
fuatinople in 401 or 402, and quotes an un- 
dignified threat that he ''would cook a dish 
fiir him" iiyib utn^ kprim x^P^)' Refer- 
riag the reader to the article John CHRirsOft- 
TOM for the details, it will be enough here to 
lay that Acadus took part in the infamous 
** Synod of the Oak," ajd. 403, where he was 
one of the four bishops specially excepted against 
by Chrysostom as men ftt>m whom no impartial 
sentence could be expected; and that he again 
took the lead in the Synod of 404, after Chrysos- 
tom'* return from exile, and joined Antiochus, 
Bubop of Ptolemais, in urging the gentle 
an*! hesitating Arcadius to depose him, taking 
all the apprehended consequences of his deposi- 
tiun on their own heads, iwl r^if icf^oA^r i)fu»r 
4 re* 'Iwirvmr KoBaipttris (Pallad. p. 82). He 
aidad acts of open violence to his urgency with 
the timid emperor, until he had gained his end 
i& the final expulsion of the saint, June 20, a.d. 
44M. Nor was his hostility even now satiated. 
The character of Chrysostom stood high in the 
W«st as well as in the East. Pope Innocent 
mii^ht take another view of the dispute. Acacius 
therefore sent to Rome one Patronus, a deformed 
dvsrf, whose provincial dialect was hardly intel- 
ligible, with letters in his own name and that of 
h t adherents, accusing Chrysostom of being the 
author of the conflagration of his own church. 
The Pope treated the accusation with deser>'ed 
contempt, and Acacius was a second time sus- 
pm<icd from communion with Rome (Pallad. 
pi. ii6). An additional ground of displeasure had 
been given, A.D. 404, by his clandestine and 
bBfried ordination of Porphyrins as Bishop of 
Astioch. in direct opposition to the wishes of the 
d:or«sc (Pallad. 145; Sox. viii. 24). Acacius did 
»it refrain communion with the West till 414, 
afri then chiefly through the influence of the 
excellent Alexander of Antioch, who had healed 
tbe Ibttg-lasting Eustathian sore, and sought to 
mtore peace fully to the Church by placing 
Cor3rioetom's name on the diptychs. The letter 
i^at to ihf Pope by Acacius, together with those 
«f' Alexander, was received with haughty conde- 
■^v'Stsion, and an answer was returned readmitting 
tit« aged prelate on his complying with certain 
ttioiitiuaa {Cone, ii. 1206-8). His communion 
vith Aiexaader was fully restored, and we Hod 
tac two prelates uniting in ordaining Diogenes, 
s "bigamns" (Theodt £p. 110). Acacius* en- 
Miij to Chrysostom's memory seems however 
la ksve bean naqncnchad ; and on the succession 



of Theodotus of Antioch, A.D. 421, he took the 
opportunity of writing to Atticus of Constanti- 
nople to apologise for the new bishop's having, 
in defiance of his better judgment, yielded to 
popular clamour, and placod Chrysostoro's name 
on the diptychs (Theodt. v. 34 ; Nicephorus, xiv. 
26, 27). On the rise of the Nestorian contro- 
versy Acacius endeavoured to act the part of a 
peacemaker, for which his venerable age of more 
than 100 years, and the popular reverence which 
had gained for him the title of "the father 
and master of all bishops " well qualified him. 
With the view of healing the breach between 
Cyril of Alexandria and Kestorius, he wrote a 
reply to a violent letter of the former (a.d. 430X 
breeching him not to disturb the peace of the 
Church for a word, and seeking to put his 
adversary's views in the most favourable light. 
When his pacific measures fitiled, and the diflicr- 
ences had risen to a height which could only be 
settled bv a general council, his advanced age 
prevented his taking any personal part in that 
summoned at Ephesus, ▲.D. 431, but he entrusted 
his proxv to Paul of Emesa, and it is not 
improbable that the Eastern bishops received a 
hint from him to meet Cjrril with his own 
weapons and indict him of Apollinarianisra. 
The influence of the aged Acacius was powerful 
at Court. Theodosius commissioned Count John 
to lay before the Council a letter Acacius had 
addr«wed to him counselling peace, as the model 
they should follow in their deliberations; and 
after the powerlessness of his advice had been 
proved by the unhappy schism between Cyril 
and the East, the Emperor wrote to him in most 
reverential terms beseeching him to give his 
endeavours and prayers for the restoration of 
unity to the distracted Church. His influence 
was also appealed to by Pope Sixtus III. for the 
same object (Balux. Cone, pp. 721, 754, 757; 
Labbe, Cone. iii. 1087). 

Acacius was strongly prejudiced against Cyril, 
and disapproved of his anathemas of Nehtorius, 
which, as we have seen, appeared to him to 
savour of Apnllinarianism. He therefore I'eccived 
with satisfaction the intelligence of the deposition 
of Cyril and Mcmnon of Ephesus, sent him by 
John of Antioch and his other friends in the 
Council (Baluz. Cone. 714), who, on the close 
of the Synod, visited him at Beroea, with a parti- 
cular account of all that passed at Ephesus and 
Chalcedon. What he heard confirmed him in his 
view of Cyril's heresy. But the old man was 
weury of controversy, of the uselessness of which 
he hod seen too many proofs in his long life, and 
Acacius si>ent his last days in the congenial task 
of promoting peace between the rival parties. 
He took part in the Synod held at the Emperor's 
instance in his own city of Beroea, a.d. 432, by 
John of Antioch, and did all in his power, both 
by personal influence and by letters to Cyril and 
to the Roman Bishop Celestinus, to put an end to 
the feud. His first endeavours proved unsuccess- 
ful, in consequence of the unreasonable demands 
made of Cyril. But, as detailed in the article 
Cyril op Jerusalem, he ultimately succeeded 
in establishing friendly communion between John 
and Cyril. He saw the peace of the Church re- 
established, and died, full of days, and honour«>d 
of all men, at the reputed age of more than 110 
years, A.D. 436. 

Three letters are still extant out of the largt 



number that be wrote, especially on the Nestorian 
controversy; two to Alexander of HierapolU, 
Balaziub, Nov. Collect Condi, cap. xli. p. 746, 
e. W. p. 757 ; and one to Cyril, lb. c. xrii. p. 440, 
Labbe, Cone. vol. iii. p. 382 (Care, Hid. Lit. i. 
417; Tillemont, Mem. Eccl, vol. xir.; Baronias, 
.^n. Ecd.y [E. V.l 

(6) Biahop of Amida, e. a.d. 420, chiefly 
fiimous fbr having indaced his clergy to sell the 
gold and silver vessels belonging to the church 
in order to feed and ransom several thousands of 
Persian captives, who had been taken by the 
Romans (Socr. vii. 21 ; Niceph. xiv. 22 ; Assem. 
B. 0. i. p. 195 sq., iii. p. 365, 371 sq., 374). 
''His name might have dignified the saintly 
calendar," says Gibbon, c. xxxii. He left some 
Letters^ on which Mares the Persian wrote com- 
mentaries; Ebedjesu in Assem. B, 0. iii. p. 51, 
172. [L,] 

(6) Bishop of Melftene fn Armenia Secunda, 
c. A.D. 431. In earlier life a reader in the 
Church at Melitene, he gained the good opinion 
of the Bishop Otreus by the sanctity of his 
life, and was entrusted by him with the educa- 
tion of St. Euthyroius ; Act. SS. Jan. 20. Suc- 
ceeding to the see, he became famous by his stead- 
fast opposition to Nestorius, with whom he had 
lived on intimate terms {ff^69pa i^irip rohs &AAovr 
iiydwfiau are his own words, Labb. Cone. iii. 
498), and whom he had tried in vain to reclaim 
to more orthodox opinions. At the Council of 
Ephesus, A.D. 431, he took an active and pro- 
minent part. Several short speeches are re- 
ported (see the indices to I^bb. and Baluz. Cone.) 
besides a homily there delivered by him (Labb. 
Cone. iii. 983). After the condemnation of Nes- 
torius, when Cyril concluded his concordat with 
tlie Oriental bishops [Cyril of Alexandria], 
Acacius wrote to remonstrate with him on the 
step (Baluz. Cone. 785). Altogether his anta- 
gonism to Nestorian teaching was not only persis- 
tent but intemperate, and his zenl more than 
once betrayed him into great extravagances of 
language. On one occasion he had to defend 
himself before Theodosius against the charge of 
maintaining that the Deity is passible — a blas- 
phemy at which the emperor shook out his 
robe and fell back in horror (Baluz. 723) ; and 
again iu an extant letter to Cyril he expresses 
himself in a manner strongly savouring of Mono- 
physitism (Baluz. 786). The date of his death 
is uncertain, but he was still living when the 
feuds broke out about Theodore of Mopsuestia ; 
for we Hnd him (c. A.D. 437), in conjunction with 
Rabulas [Rabuij^s], exerting himself actively 
in condemnation of this great man's writings : 
Liberat. Brev. 10 (Gall. Bibl. Vet. Pair. xii. p. 
134). In his own church he was held in high 
honour. Not long after his death the bishops of 
his province designate him **the great Acacius 
our fether and doctor " (Labb. Cone. iv. 950) ; 
aud in some Greek Menaea he is commemorated 
as a thaumaturge on April 17 (see At-t. SS. 
March 31, but there is some confusion with an 
earlier Acacius (1) ). See Tiliemont l/ist. Eccl. 
xiv. p. 294 sq., 385, 453, 475, 567, 628. [L.] 

(7) Patriarch op Constantinople, a.d. 
471-489. Acacius was originally at the head of 
an orphanage at Constantinople, which he ad- 
ministered with conspicuous success (Suidas, s. v. 
'Akokios). His abilities attracted the notice of 
the Lmperor Leo, over whom he obtained great 


influence by the arts of an aooomplisbed courtSc 
(Suidas, 1.0.}. On the death of Qennadius (471 
he was chosen Bishop of Constantinople, and soo 
found himself involved in controversies, whic 
lasted throughout his patriarchate, and ended i 
a schism of thirty-five years' duration bet wee 
the Churches of the East and West. On the on 
side he laboured to restore nnity to Easter 
Christendom, which was distracted by the vi 
rieties of opinion to which the Entychian debat< 
had given rise ; and on the other to aggrandii 
the authority of his see by asserting its indi 
pendence of Rome, and extending its influenc 
over Alexandria and Antioch. In both respect 
he appears to have acted more in the spirit < 
a statesman than of a theologian ; and in th 
relation the personal traits of liberality, cour 
liness, and ostentation, noticed by Suidas (/. c. 
are not without importance. 

The first important measures of Acacius ca: 
ried with them enthusiastic popular suppor 
and earned for him the praise or Pope Simplicia 
In conjunction with a Stylite monk, Daniel, I; 
placed himself at the head of the opposition ( 
the Emperor Basiliscus, who, after usurping tl 
empire of the East, had issued an encyclic lett( 
in condemnation of the Council of Chalcedo: 
and taken Timotheus Aelurus, the Monophysi 
Patriarch of Alexandria, under his protectio; 
A.D. 476. The resistance was completely su 
cessftil. Basiliscus publicly retracted his lettei 
the Asiatic bishopa who had subscribed it, pr 
fessed that their names were given under con 
pulsion, and the Monophysites, who had be< 
intruded into various sees, were expelled. 1 
the mean time Zeno, the fugitive emperor, r 
claimed the throne which he had lost ; and Bai 
liscos after abject and vain concessions to tl 
ecclesiastical power, was given up to him (as 
is said) by Acacius, after he had taken sanctuai 
in his church, A.D. 477 (Evagr. N. E. iii. 4 i 
Theodor. Lect. i, 30 ff; Theophan. Chron. pp. 10 
ff; Procop. B. V. I. 7, p. 195). At this peri* 
the relations between Zeno, Acacius, and Sii 
plicius, appear to have been amicable, if n 
cordial. They were agreed on the necessity 
taking vigorous measures to affirm the decrc 
of the Council of Chalcedon, and for a time act 
in concert (Simplic. Epp. 5, 6). Before long a sei 
ous difference arose, when Acacius, in 479, cons 
crated a Bishop of Antioch (Theophan. Chron. 
110), and thus exceeded the proper limits of 1 
jurisdiction. However, Simplicius admitted t 
appointment on the plea of necessity, while 
protested against the precedent (Simplic. Ej. 
14, 15). Three years later (482), on the dea 
of the patriarch of Alexandria, the appointmc 
of his successor gave occasion to a graver dispu 
The Monophysites choice Petrus Mongus as pat 
arch, who had already been conspicuous amo 
them; on the other side the Catholics put fc 
ward Johannes Talaia. Both aspirants Iny op 
to grave objections. Mongus was, or at lei 
had been, unorthodox; Talaia was bound by 
solemn promise to the emperor not to seek 
(as it appears) accept the patriarchate (Liber 
c 17; Evagr. //. E. iii. 12). Tali\ia at oi 
sought and obtained the support of Simplici 
and slighted Acacius. Mongus represented 
Acacius that he was able, if confirmed in his pc 
to heal the divisions by which the Alux.nndri 
church was rent. Acacius and Zeno readily ] 




to tht promiaw of Mongut, aad in ipita of 
tW ▼cbcment oppoution of Simplicitu, received 
Um tnrcj% whom he icnt to disciue the terms of 
iMBioo. Shortlr afterwardfl the Henoticon (An 
Iv-tmmeat of Union) wm dntwn np, in which 
the creed of Nicsen, as completed at Constantino- 
^ was affirmed to he the odc necessary and final 
dsfiaition of fiuth ; and though an anathema was 
prononsoad against Eutjches, no express judg- 
ment was prooonneed apoa the doctrine of the 
two Katvres (Eragr. If. E. iii. 14)*. Mongns 
seoeptcd the Henoticon, and was confirmed in his 
•et. Talaia retired to Rome (482-3), and Sim- 
piicins wrote again to Acacius, charging him in 
the stroogcst language to chedc the progress of 
hemy elsewhere nnd at Alexandria (Simplic 
Ep^ 18, 19). The letters were without effect, 
sad SimpUdos died soon afterwards. His snc- 
ccuor, Felix III (II) espoused the cause of Talaia 
with seal, and despatched two hishope, Vitalis 
sad Miaenna, to Constantinople with letters to 
Zcoo and Acadus, demanding that the Utter 
■iMmld repair to Rome to answer the charges 
krooght against him by Talaia (Felix Epp. 1, 2). 
lite misAion nttcrljr fiiiled. Vitalis and M isenus 
were indnood to communicate publicly with 
Aesdna and the representatires of Mongus, and 
returned dijUionouned to Italj (484). On their 
irriral at Rome a sjnod was held. They were 
thrm«elTcs deposed and excommunicated ; a new 
ttsthema was issued against Mongus, and Aca- 
dia was irrerocablj excommunicated^ for his 
eaonaxioQ with Mongus, for exceeding the limits 
•f hb juriadiction, ud for reAising to answer at 
KooM the accusations of Tabia (Evagr. If, E, iii. 
21; Felir, Ep. 6); but no direct heretical 
o)rtaion waa prored or ui^ed against him. Felix 
CMDmunicated the sentence to Acadus, and at 
\h» ame time wrote to Zeoo and to the church 
st CottAtantinople, charging every one, under pain 
«f vxoommunlcation, to separate from the deposed 
patriarch {Epp. 9, 10, 12). Once again, the 
taroy of the Po|>e was seduced from his alle- 
liaBce, and on his return to Rome fell under 
errlenastical censure (Felix Ep. 11). For the 
rest, the threats of Felix produced no practical 
effect. The Eastern Christians, with very few 
rtcpptiona. remained in communion with Acacius ; 
TilAia acknowledged the hopelessnem of his cause 
by Brrepting the bishopric of Nola; and Zeno 
sa*] Acni-tus took active measures to obtain the 
C»oenl acceptance of the Henoticon. Under these 
circumstjinces the condemnation of Acacius, 
vbich before had been made in the name of the 
Pcipe. was repeated in the name of the council, 
■ai the schbm was complete' (485). Acacius, 
h"vrver, took no heed of the sentence up to his 
dtath in 489, which was followed by that of 
If.icgtu in 490, and of Zeno in 491. Fravitas 
^llaritaa, Flavianus) his successor, during a very 

• Aueotdinf to tbe |>resmt t^xt of ETaffrlus (til. 31). 
Into dM Bol admit the Cuandl of Ch&loedon; but In 
VTOiafC <o HimpUdus he afflrms that It was admitted by 
Unt0-:f, by IfimgiMc and bj all Uie cbarcbes. 

^ Felix /p. • Ikn. Uabe ergo cum his ... . porilonrm 
....K Spirltns Jodido et aptMlolica aactoritate damnaton, 
sca'isaBqueaiiatb'inatb vinculiseziinKluab AsarHori 
Aeactei rmowd the name of Felix from the ' Diptycbs ' 
fTVofAaa pi 114). 

f TV- — — -iirs to be the bnH ezplsnation of the 
imtnileatloa " of Acadua Oomp. Tille- 
arL n. aft. pp. Tt4 L 

short patriarchate, entered on negotiatioiu with 
Felix, which led to no result. The policy 
of Acadus broke down when he was no longer 
able to animate it. In the course of a few years 
all for which he had laboured was undone. The 
Henoticon failed to restore unity to the East, and 
in 519 the Emperor Justin submitted to Pope 
Hormisdas, and the condemnation of Acadus was 
recognised by the Constantinopolitan Church. 

Tillemont has given a detailed history of the 
whole controversy, up to the death of rravltas, 
in his M^moiresy vol. *xvi, but with a natural 
bias towards the Roman side. The original 
documents, exclusive of the htotories of Eva- 
grins, Theophanes, and Liberatus, are fbr the 
moat part collected in the 58th volume of 
Migne's Patroiogia. It has been supposed that 
Victor Vitensis dedicated to Acacius his History 
of the Vandal Persecution^ but this conjecture is 
not supported by adequate evidence: Sirmond 
Vict. Vit. Pro/. [W.] 

(8) Bishop of Seleucia and Catholicus of 
Persia, from a.d. 485, said to have been the first 
Nestorian patriarch. He is called the Assyrian, 
and was educated at the school of Edessa, where, 
for some reason not explained, he bore the 

name i^DOlS <ft±A^ ** snffocans quadrantem." 

Thence he was summoned to Seleuda (on the 
Tigris) by his kinsman Babuaeus, bishop of that 
ch nrch. Having taught there for some years, and 
gained a great reputation by his learning and cha- 
racter, he was on the death of Babuaeus (A.D. 485) 
unanimously elected to the vacant see. After hia 
elevation, it is said that he was driven by the 
thr«its or induced by the wiles of Barsumas bishop 
of Nisibis, the great Nestorian champion in those 
parts, to embrace Nestorianism. But his rela- 
tions with Barsumas, who is said moreover to have 
compassed the death of his relative and patron Ba- 
buaeus, are very differently reported by others, and 
he appears in his dealings with this unscrupulous 
prelate to have shown great independence and 
modcrntion. If Acacius really became a Nestorian 
(and it is probable that his sympathies were in 
this direction), he was at least no blind partisan, 
as the following incident shows. Having been 
thrown into prison by the Magians, he was re- 
leased by the Persian king and sent as ambassador 
to the em})eror Zeno, being selected for this pur- 
pose on account of his learning and ability. On 
this embassy he was questioned by the Western 
bishops about his Nestorianism, and was urged 
(as a condition of communion) to dissociate him 
self from the scandalous doings of Barsumas. On 
the former point he replied that he knew nothing 
about Nestorius or Nestorianism ; and for the 
latter, he determined to excommunicate Barsumas, 
but on his return found that prelate no longer 
living. He is said to have held a council at 
Seleucia, at which canons were passed allowing 
and even encouraging the marriage of the clergy. 
Altogether he seems to have been a wise, mode- 
rate, and enlightened ruler, but in the conflict 
of Nestorian and Monophysite authorities it is 
almost Impossible to arrive at the truth. The 
date of his death Is differently given by different 
authorities, and Assemani in this, as in other 
points, is not consistent with himself; but it 
must have taken place before the close of the 
rentury. Acacius wrote several orations on 
Fasting f as also on the Faith^ in which latti^r 


" he exposed the erron of those who beliere one berht who consecrated Frithuberht as Acca 

substance in Chnst.** The authorities for all successor in 734. A tradition is preserved b 

these statements will be found in Assam. B, 0» Richard of Hexham that Acca spent his exile i 

L p. 351, ii. p. 406 sq., Ui. p. 69 sq., 378 sq. the organization of the Church at Whithem, i 

(especially this last reference). [L.] Gallowaj (Hist. Hag%ist. cap. 15). He died Oc 

ArtAmrrra rA/«.^m*.i ^^i 7^* ^^^ ^*> buried at Hexham, outside th 

AOATIUS. [ACACIU8.] east end of the church. Two crosUs were « 

AOCA, the fifth Bishop of Hexham (a.d. 709- up over the grave, one of which is supposed t 

732), was a native of Northumbria and brought be still existing (Raine, Mem, Hexham, i. ] 

up in the household of Boea, who became Bishop xxxiv). His relics were translated in the lit 

of York in 678 (Bede H, E, v. 20). A few years century, and again in 1154. He was oommeoM 

after this date he transferred himself to the rated in the calendar on the 19th of February, 

service of Wilfrid, whom he accompanied in his (Bede, H. E, ▼. 19, 20 ; Mabillon, Ada S. 

missionary visit to Sussex about 685 (Bede iv. Ord, Bened. Saec. iii. p. 1, pp. 209, &c ; Richai 

14). He seems to have continued with him in of Hexham, ed. Twysden, Dec Scr. as cite 

the closest intercourse as long as Wilfrid lived, above ; Raine, MemoHaU of Hexham^ voL i. Pre 

With him he went in 704 to Rome, visiting pp. xxx.-xxxv. 31-36.) [S.] 

S. WilUbrord in Kriesland by the way (Bede ACEMBES CAicf/i^iif), of Carystus in Eubo« 

Iii. 13). Bede's mention of this probably led fg named by Hippolytus (ffaer, iv. 2; v. 13 

the peeudo-Maroellinus to reckon Acca among x. lo); followed by Theodoret (^aer. Fab. i. 17 

the twelve missionaries sent by Egbcrht to Fries- with Euphrates the ♦ Peratic ' as chiefs of tfc 

land in 692 (see Bede, v. lOX &lsely, no doubt Ophite sect called Peratae. In the second pai 

On the return from Rome he was made the con- gage the MS. of Hippolytus has Kf A^^», in tfc 

fidant of Wiiftid's vbion at Meaux (Eddius, c third *A9tfiiis, which is also read by Theodore 

54). Wilfrid immediately before his death no- Poasibly the true form of the name may fc 

miaated Acca to the Abbacy of Hexham (Edd. c. Acelmes : cf. *AKtKi^as (Suid.), K^A^HJ, K«A/ii: 

62) ; and the same year he was appointed to Jq ptfenander ap.] Joseph, c. Ap, i. 21 CMbet i 

succeed him as bishop. He governed the diocese a Tyrian name. [Peratae, OpuitesI. PH.! 

of Hexham from 709 to 732, devoting himself aVi^ott a x t ,1 i j .a f^ J 

to the completion of Wilfrid's designs, and to ACEPHALI (from 4 and icc^oX^ those witl 

the maintenance of the religious education and ?"^* ^^"^JT * **'^*^) »' * *«"°. WJJ^*-- 

art of the North on the Roman model. His skiU ^l I? **»« ^I**»«,P« «^^*^« OecumenioJ Counc 

m ecclcsisstical music and architecture is men- %{ *•?»»«?,"» m 431, who refused to follow eithf 

tioned bv Bede with especial praise. He brought ?*• ^^"1 or John of Antioch, the leaders < 

Mabanu; a pupil of the Kentbh Church to t^ch ^^« ^'^^ P*I^»*? I" **>? Nestonan controversj 

Gregorian music at Hexham, and kept him there ^\ To » »<1»«J branch of Monophysites, wh 

for iwelre years (Bede, ff, E. v. 20). His mag- "J*?**^ »»?* ^^\y ^^^^ Oecumenical Council i 

nificence in churdi building was not less thim Chalcedon in 451, but also the notorious i^enoj 

Wilfrid's, whose three churches, dedicated to ^ ^^ **»« Emperor Zeno, issued « 482 to tfc 

St. Mary, St. Peter, and St. Michael, in the clergy, monks, and con^egations of Egypt, wit 

neighbourhood of Hexham, he completed (R. Hex- •. 7»«^ ^ unite the Orthodox and the Monophj 

ham, jy«^. ^o^Hrf. cap. 4). His greatest work, "tM. Peter Mongu^ the Monophysite Patr 

however, was the Library of Hexham, which he ?"*» «»^ Alexandria, subscnbed this compromu 

fiimished with a great number of Lives of the [ACACius]; for this reason many of his parti 

Saints and other ecclesiastical books. espeaally among the monk^, separated from hm 

Of hU administration of his diocese we know "^ ^«7 <»!¥ ^?7^^»- ^^^^J^T ^"^,T»? 

little. He blessed Huaetbert, Abbot of Wear- JSf**" J"*tinian, by a Synod of Constantinopl 

mouth, and Jarrow in 716 (Bede, Hist. Abbot, c ^^6, as schismatics, who sinned against tfc 

15). His acquaintance with Bede had begun Sj"^^.*»^ *^« P?.P«» *;!/*»« '''^S^''^'. ^"J 

«)me years eailier; if the dedication by Bede of ,M^"' ^^•^•^''"irP; PlT•iw*'^'''^^'^ 

hU Hexameron to Acca as abbot may hi trusted, \i »!• 1203, sqq. ; Wfi\ch,Ketzerhtstcne, vol. va 

they must have been friends as wirly as 709. Heiele, Conci/t^escAicAte, vol. ii. pp. 549 an 

B^e acknowledges his obligations to Acca for 1^' pfONOPHWiTES.] 3 To ihtclenct tKMQ 

some particulars of his history (H. E. iii. 13, iv. \' ?• ^f^T^^ ^l***"!!'*? ^u ""* "^'J^r i"J 

14); ind besides the Hexameron addressed to ^'"^'^^.Bf (y/jfec. Ifcc/. the so-called Egbert 

him a commentary on St. Mark, and a poem on ^*«^*' ^^^\^^ repeatedly in Cariovmgi. 

the Day of Judgiient (Sim. Dun. ap. Twysden, Councib: see Du Cange) ; [see Dicr. OP Chrw 

Coll 95-98) * ^ r J J Ant., art. Vaoi Clerici]: and 4. It is said t 

It was byAcca's persuasion that Eddius wrote ^ "»*^ sometimes for ainoKd^ou [DiCT. C 

hU life of Wilfrid, and to him, conjointly with ^^^^' ^^' ^^ Adtocephaw]. [P. S.. 

Tatberht, Abbot of Ripon, that invaluable work ACE8IUS QAK€eios\ "* a bishop of the Not) 

is dedicated (Edd. V. Wilfr. Prolog.). Of Acca's tian sect (0pi|<ricf (as)," invited by ConsUntine 1 

own writings only a single letter is preserved the Council of Nicaea. After expressing h 

addressed to Bede pressing him to write a com- agreement with the decisions of the Counei 

mentary on St. Luke. This is printed among lie is said to have justified his separation froi 

the letters of Bede ; and in Raine*s MemoriaU of Catholic communion by severe Novatian vies 

Hexham^ i. 33. on discipline [Novatianism] : whereupon tl 

In 732 Acca was driven from his see (Cont. emperor replied, ** Set up a ladder, Acesiu 

Bed. 731, Sim. Dun. a.d. 732). The reason is and mount alone to heaven '* (Socr. //. E. i. 1( 

unknown ; but it was perhaps connected with cf. Soz. H. E. i. 22). There seems to be no sufl 

the restoration of the metropolitical authority cient reason for doubting the substantial tml 

to York on the appointment cf Archbishop Eg- of the anecdote which Socrates expressly ■•; 


lold him by a NoTatian presbyter, Anxanon, 
vbo went with Acesios to Nicaea, being at tha 
tiaw a BMre boy (/T. E. i. 13; cf. ii. 98). At a 
later time, Aoesina was bishop of the Novatians 
fll Coaatantinople (Sox. II,E. ii. 32> Compare 
Lazdaer, CrmUbOity, iU. 224^ f. [W.] 

ACHA, a daughter of Ella, King of Deira, 
iktcr of Edwin, the firat CSiristian Icing of Nor- 
thvmbria. She married EthelfHth, who was 
King of Northambria tnm 593-617, by whom 
•ke became mother of Eanfrith, k. 633-634, 
Oswald, k. 636-642; Oswiu, k. 642-670; Oslaf, 
Odsc, Oswodn, and Offa ; and of Ebba, Abbess of 
Coldiagham. (Bade, H. E. iii. 6. Flor. Wig. 
Ifoa. NiM. Brit, 632, 639.) [S.] 


ACHEA (St.), of Kill-glais, near Ardagh, in 
Iielaod, the daughter of St. Darerca, sister of 
St Patrick, in the 5th century. Commemorated 
«a the 5th of August. The name is also written 
Echea, Echi. ((XClery, MaHyroL DungaU. ed. 
Todd and fieeres (Echi); Colgan, Ada SS, Ifi- 
kermag, p. 718.) [H. B.] 

ACHILLAB CAxtAAar). (1) Patriarch of 
Alexandria, a.d. 31 1-312. During the episco- 
ute of Theonas (283-301) he was ordained ores- 
Vjter and placed orer the catechetical school, 
wbert ke distinguished himself alike by an ardent 
pursuit of philosophy and a consistent Christian 
hk (Euaeb. H. E. rii. 32, § 30). It was perhaps 
sving to his eminence in this office rather than 
to any triumphs achiered during his rery brief 
epbei^Mto (Tlieodt H. E i. 1, 6\lyo9 XP^^^^ 
vpojerni) that Athanasius honoun him with the 
tHk of «« the great Achillas" (Op. i. 232). On 
the martTTdom of Peter he was raised to the 
yatriajrhal throne, but died apparently within 
a year, and was succeeded by Alexander. Epi- 
piauas indeed {Haer. Ixriii. 3, p. 719; Ixix. 11, 
f. 735 sq.) represents Alexander as the prede- 
evassr of Achillas, who proridentially dies soon 
srter his elevation to make room for AthanasiuK ; 
bat the testimony of strictly contemporary autho- 
rities is decisire on this point (Euseb. /. c. ; Athan. 
0^ i. 105, 140, 242). The length of his episco- 
pate afaia b Tariou&ly stated, the period aasigned 
te it by different authorities ranging between 
three BKNiths and nearly ten years; but the 
tuBe giT«n abore is probably correct (Tillemont, 
M. E. tL 730 sq.). The only act recorded of his 
ipisciipate is the restoration of Arins to the 
dtamnate and his promotion to the priesthood 
(2M»caiB. i. 15). As we are told that Achillas was 
the obiect of malignant attacks on the part of 
the Ifeletians (Athan. 11. cc.), it has been thought 
tltait this act of clemency to Anus was dictated 
bv czceas of xeal against their principles. 

(1) <.hM of the Alexandrian clergy, a friend 
mi partiaan of Anus, who was deposed by 
hakcp Alexander, and retired from Alexandria 
Vita the heresiarch. His name is attached to the 
Wttcr of defence written afterwards by Anus to 
i:#ta»<ier. Contemporaries speak of him as a 
fnmt morer of Ariani»m (Theodt. //. E. i. 3 
(4): Efiph. Ilaer. Ixix. 8 (p. 73:i); Athan. Op. i. 
f. 314 sq.). The name is written sometimes 
'A|rjuiaf, sometimes *Ax«AA«i;s. The former 
MHM to be correct. Jerome calls him a ** lector " 
ittr. L^-if. 20, ii. p. 19-i), and in the existing^ 
teit «f bishop Alexander's letter in Theodoret 
(ic.) ha appears among tha deaocns; but in 


another manifesto of Alexander (Athan. Op, ]. c.) 
he is called a presbyter, and in the letter of 
Anus (Epiph. /. c.) he signs as such. The iden- 
tity of the person can hardly be doubted. [L] 

ACHOUUS, bishop of Thessalonica (*< ad 
•ummum sacerdotinm a Macedonicis obsecratua 
populis, electus a sacerdotibus " ; Ambros. Ep, xv. 
$ 12), baptised Theodosius, 380, before his Gothie 
war [Theodosius], and died c 383. Ambroaa 
wrote a letter on the occasion of his death 
{Ep. XT.) to the church at Thessalonica, in 
which he compares at length his life and gifts 
with those of Elisha. As Elisha (he argues) was 
the instrument of proclaiming the discomfiture 
of the Syrians (2 K. vii.) so Acholius, by his 
prayers, drove back the Goths from Macedonia 
(Ambrose, Ep. I.e. ; cf. Ep, xiii. § 7). Acholius 
was present at the Council of Constantinople, 
A.D. 381 (Socr. H, E. v. 8, *A<rx<{Aior ; cf. Vales. 
/. c). [W.] 

AGLEJAH in the Conflict cf Adam and Eve 
(p. 68 Dillm.) is the twin-sister of Abel and wife 
of Seth : further on she appears as Lea, In the 
Ethiopic * Clementinum ' she is called Aclemja 
(Dillmann, p. 139^ and by other late writers, 
Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew (all of whom inter- 
change her with her equally legendary sister 
Luva), C/iimd, Chalmana, Calemoroy and Caomena 
(Dillm. ib. and Fabr. Cod, Ps. Ep, V, T. 
ii. 44). [H.] 

ACTA ANDREAK [Acts of Apostles, 
p. 30.] 


[Acts op Apostles, p. 30.] 

ACTA BARNABAK [Acts of Apostles, 
p. 31.] 

Apostles, p. 30.] 

ACTA J0HANNI8. [Acts of Apostles, 
p. 29.] 


[Acts of Aposthis, p. H«>.] 

A(yrA MARTYRI;M. [Martyrum Acta.] 

ACTA MATTHAEL [Acre of Apootuss, 
p. 32.] 

ACTA PAULL [Acts of Apostles, p. 29.] 

Apostles, p. 30.] 

ACTA PETRL [Acre of Ai-ostles, p. 29.] 

Apostlfs, p. 27.] 

ACTA PHILIPPL [Acts of Apootlb^ 

p. 30.] 
ACTA PILATL [Dict of Bidle, art. 


Apostlls, p. 31.] 

ACTA THADDAEL [Acre of Apostles, 
p. 24.] 

ACTA THOBIAE. [Acre op Apostles, 
p. 30.] 

PHAL. — Under the name of Acts or Deeds (irpd- 
^ttSyArta^ i4'itis), Circuits or Journeys («-cp(o8o(), 
and Martyrdom or CooHummation (jiofnvpiof, rc- 
Ktim<ns% of the various A|MHitles was comprised 
in the times of Christian antiquity » widely spread 




and manifold literature, of which reiy important 
remains still exist. As early as the 2nd century 
numerous legendary reports concerning the fates 
of the Apostles were in circulation, in part, at 
least, of a rery romantic character, llie real 
history of the Uvea and deaths of most of the 
Apostles being shrouded in obscurity, a pious 
inoagination was very early busily employed in 
filling up the large lacunae left in the historical 
reminiscences of the Church. Not a few of such 
narratives owe their origin simply to an endea- 
vour to satisfy the pious curiosity or taste for 
the marvellous in members of the primitive 
Church ; while others subserved the local in- 
terests of particular towns or districts which 
claimed to have derived their Christianity from 
the missionary activity of one of the Apostles, 
or their line of bishops from one immediately 
ordained by him. It likewise not infrequently 
happened that party spirit, theological or eccle- 
siastical, would take advantage of a pious credu- 
lity to further its own en(Ls by manipulating 
the older legends, or inventing others entirely 
new, after a carefully preconceived form and 
pattern. And so almost every fresh editor of 
fuch narratives, using that freedom which all 
antiquity was wont to allow itself in dealing 
with literary monuments, would recast the ma- 
terials which lay before him, excluding what- 
ever might not suit his theological point of 
view, — dogmatic statements, for example, 
speeches, prayers, &c., for which he would sub- 
stitute other formula of his own composition, 
and further expanding or abridging after his 
own pleasure, or as the immediate object which 
he had in view might dictate. Only with the 
simply miraculous rarts of the narrative was 
the case different. These passed unaltered and 
unqumtioned from one hand to another; eccle- 
siastical circles the most opposed in other re- 
spects having here equal and coinciding inte- 
rests, while the critical spirit, usually so acute 
in detecting erroneous opinions or heretical ten- 
dencies, was contented here to lay down its arms, 
however troubled or suspected the source from 
which such legendary narration might flow. 
Although therefore these fables originated for the 
most part in heretical quarters, we find them at a 
later period among the cherished possessions of 
ordinary Catholics, acquaintance with them being 
perpetually renewed, or their memory preserved 
in Catholic Christendom, partly by the festal 
homilies of eminent fathers, and partly by religi- 
ous poetry and works of sacred art. They present 
however, like all legends or myths preserved in 
popular memory, great difficulties in the way of 
a satisfactory treatment from a literary point 
of view, perpetually springing up, as they do, 
afresh, now here, now there, now in one shape, 
now in another, and again withdrawing them- 
selves in a tantalising way, for a longer or 
shorter period, from the eyes of the historical 
inquirer. The older church martyrologies and 
calendars, subject as they were to continuous pro- 
cesses of change and augmentation, and the col- 
lectanea of later chroniclers and legend writers, 
who for the most part copied one ^om another, 
have furnished us with rich stores of legendary 
matter, which only in rare instances can be sat- 
isfactorily traced back to their original sources. 
This remark applies especially to the later By- 
tantine literature ; since in the case of the 

mediaeval Latin collections, such as thoM < 
Ordericus Vitalis in the 12th century, and it 
Golden Legend of Jacobus de Vitriaco in tl 
second half of the 13th, the direct sources cai 
for the most part, be &irly ascertained. (Tt 
former of these works, Orderid Vitalis Monad 
Uticensis ffistoriae Ecciesiasticae Libri 11^ wi 
published by Andre du Chesne among the Scrii 
tores Normannici, Paris 1619 ; the Legenda Aum 
or ffidoria LongobardicOy is edited by Grftss 
Leipzig 1845.) We still possess, with rare e: 
ceptions, all the authorities employed by Lati 
writers from the 7th and 8th centuries dowi 
wards, so that critical inquiries of this nature a] 
seldom arrested at a later period than the times • 
Gregory of Tours (f 595), Venantius Fortunati 
(t 609), and Isidore of Seville (f 636^ or, at tl 
latest, of the venerable Bede (f 735). Byzantii 
writers on the other hand, down to the 13th ai 
14th centuries, drew in part from sources no 
inaccessible. Among these Byzantine auth 
rities may be reckoned along with the invaluab 
Bibiiotheca of Photius, Patriarch of Constant 
nople towards the end of the 9th century (M 
pi6$i$Kor, ed. Bekker, Berlin 1824), the Grei 
Menaea, and the numerous hagiologies whii 
bear the name of Simeon Metaphrastes (1(X 
century). Some of these are found in Comb 
fisius (Auctarium Novum), others in Surius ai 
the Bollandists {Ada Sanctorum), for the mo 
part only in Latin translations. To these mi 
be added the chronographical works of Georgi 
Syncellus (published by Dindorf, Bonn 1829), m 
of the patriarch Nicephorus (also published I 
Dindorf along with Syncellus), Georgius Hama 
tolus (9th century, published in Migne's Patr 
Graeca, vol. ex), Georgius Cedrenus (11th oe 
tury, ed. Bekker, Bonn 1838), and several other 
finally the Ecclesiastical history of Nicephorus Ci 
listi (14th century, Nicephori Callistl Hist. Ecc 
ed. Pronto Ducaeus, Paris 1630). In these lat 
Byzantine writera we not seldom find remains 
fragments of older legendary Acts of Apost: 
which are not without importance for the Hi 
rary inquirer. It is possible that many autl 
rities of which these writers made use may st 
lie buried in the dust of our public librari* 
At any rate, it is the fact that during the li 
forty years, since Thilo and Tischendorf ha 
turned their attention to this department 
literature, numerous manuscripts, hitherto v 
known or at any rate unprinted, have be 
brought to light ; and we know of the existei 
of several others which still in vain await pt 
lication. The pieces published by Tischend« 
in his edition of the Apocryphal Acts of t 
Apostles {Acta Apostoiorum Apocrypha, Leip; 
1851) form but a small portion of already exi 
ing materials ; for the rest, we are still oblif 
for the most part to have recourse to the oh 
and oflen not very accessible collections 
Neander {Nurrationes Apocryphie de Christo 
Jiehtis Christianis, at the end of his Catecfu 
Lutheri Graeco-Latina, Basel 1567), Fabric 
{(hdex Apocryphus Novi Testamcnti, torn. i. i 
ii., Hamburg 1703, 2nd ed. 1719, torn, i 
1719X Grabe {Spicilegium Patrum et Haen 
corum, Oxford 1698), Birch (Auctanum C 
Apocr, Faljrician.y p. i., Hamburg 1804), 1 
Bibliothecae Patrum, and the Acta Sancton 
The older editions are often incorrect and i 
to be depended on, while the selection made 



neeat pnblicatSona is not alwayi happy. How 
B«di atill remains to be done in order mereij 
to present oar existing materials in a complete 
form and with good texts, is evident from the 
dutioos and references in Fabricius (ii. pp. 
74;$-88-2, iii. pp. 568-660X Thilo (in the Notitia 
Vherior Nunae Codtdt Apocryphi Fcinidani Edi- 
tiernu, prefixed to his edition of the Ada Thomae, 
Leipxig l82Ci, and in Tarious programms), and 
Tisdteiidorf (prolegomena to his edition of the 
Ada Apo&tchnun Apocrypha, already referred 

From all thb it is clear that any compre- 
keosiTe critical examination of the apocryphal 
Acts of the Apostles will have great difficulties 
to contend with. Some of the oldest of these 
docwnents were derired merely from oral tradi- 
tioits with which later editors enriched at times 
their own written materials. Traces of such 
traditiooB we encounter as early as the middle 
of the 2nd ceatnry in Dionysius of Corinth, 
i^apias of Hierapolis, Polycrates of Ephesus, Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, and afterwards in Origen, 
ircnaeni, Tertnllian, &c But it is now no longer 
poMible in many instances to determine how 
hr cren the older fathers made use of already 
cxmting written authorities. In some cases this 
can be clearly prored, as in that of the Acts of 
J*Her amd Foul, which are mentioned as early as 
the end of the 2nd century. Recent inrestiga- 
tioas moreorer hare shown that in large por- 
tiws of these Acts genuine reminiscences are to 
he fonnd, though not in reference to the legends 
thenuelres, yet in regard to the setting in which 
they are presented to us, their secular historical 
backgroand or their geographical and ethno- 
graphical scenery (compare especially Gutschroid 
the KonigsTtamen in den Apocryphen AposUlge- 
9>-^-Aten in the Rheinisckes ifuteum fur PhUologie, 
Hote F'jkjt^ XIX. pp. 161 sqq. 380 sqq.). Yet, at 
tiM same time, all efforts to derive from them 
SOT tni<t worthy particulars as to the actual 
hut4/rie« of the Apostles themselves, or to extract 
frro the confuted mass of legends any sound 
htftr>rical nucleus, have hitherto proved almost 
aiv«r« unsucceMful. 

_ « 

Th^ legends concerning the labours of the 
IpMtles in various countries are all originnlly 
er-fio^kcteU with that of their separation at Jeru- 
Mi>m. which is as old as the 2nd century. The 
I'ffreiHm Gffnnii (vi. 37, Credner, Zur Geschichtt 
dft A'^iffM. Halle 1847, p. 220) refers, among 
U^yrx rejifimdi, to one which it describes as " liber, 
^q> ippelUtur S^»rteR Apo«tolorum,apocryphu8." 
Th:* fa»M>k probably contained, besides the legend 
tt'if an«l an enumeration of the different 
o-<iatr.<i( which the Apostles took by lot, some 
ancMuat of the various fates which befel them 
tii#r^. It was a book of Gnostic or Manichean 
shria. if we may draw any conclusion from the 
OEiAaMrtKin in which we find it mentioned in 
Pvjie GeUsiu!«*s decree. Thilo (ilcta Thomae, p. 
(1 sqq.X following St. Augustine (da Utii. 
''•w£ *•. 3, c. Aditn. c 17), derives the whole 
Irrik'i from the Manichees, who are said to have 

Purpnurly snb»tituted it for the account of the 
vatecottal outpouring of the Holy Spirit in 
Attft 11. Bat for proof of this he relics solely 
oa the cirenmstanoe that nothing is said of the 
4eKeat of the Holy Ghost in the IlfpfoSot, while 
t^ A|r4Mtie« r.r^ there represented as unac- 
qistatei with foreign languages, and their divi- 

sion among themselves of the different countries 
of the earth is said to have taken place imme- 
diately ailer our Lord's Ascension. But the 
inadeqcuu:y of this proof is evident from a com- 
parison of the Doctrina Apostolorum, a Syriac 
work composed towards the end of the 4th cen- 
tury. (See Cureton's Ancient Syriac Documents, 
London 1864, p. 24 of the English translation.) 
In that work the Resurrection and the Pentecostal 
outpouring of the Holy Spirit are represented, in 
accordance with an early tradition, as occurring 
on the self-same day. After the Lord's disap- 
pearance in the clouds, the Apostles retire to 
their 6«-«p^y, and are at a loss to know how 
they are to preach the Gospel to all nations 
while ignorant of their different languages. 
Peter admonishes his companions to commit 
their care unto the Lord, whereupon ensues the 
miracle of Pentecost, and each Apostle receives 
his own special tongue. Empowered by the gift 
of the Holy Spirit, they first issue ordinances 
which shall be binding on all churches and then 
disperse themselves through the world. From 
this it is evident that this tradition of the Apos- 
tles being in perplexity how they should preach 
the Gospel to foreign nations does not exclude 
that of the miracle of the gift of tongues ; but, 
on the contrary, might be employed to suggest a 
motive for it, even supposing the Manichees had 
endeavoured to put the miracle of Pentecost 
in the background. Moreover, the narrative 
of this miracle in the canonical Book of the 
Acts, and the enumeration there given of the 
various nations of the earth whose languages 
the Apostles spoke, if taken in connection with 
the command " Go teach all nations," &c. (Matt, 
xxviii. 19), brings us so near to the legend of 
the Sortes Apostoiorum, that we cannot fix the 
original date of that tradition later than the 
2nd century. The tradition varies however, 
as to the time which elapsed between the As- 
cension of the Lord and the fulfilment of His 
injunction (Matt, xxviii. 19) by the Apostles. 
Thus the Gnostic Ada TAomcr^ (Tischendorf, Ad, 
Apost, Apocr., p. 190 sq.), Pseudo-Prochorus 
(Ada JoanniSf c. i. in Bihlidh, Patr, Maxima, 
ii. p. 46 sq.), and the Syriac Dodrina Aposto- 
lorum mentioned above (Cureton 1. c), represent 
the ApoKtle.s casting lots for the various countries 
of the earth immediately af^er the Ascension, 
and each of them forthwith departing to the 
province assigned him. The same tradition 
appears to be assumed in the apocryphal work 
de Transitu Marine (Tischendorf, Apocalypses 
AftocrypAafj p. 125, and in a different text p. 
114), which, placing the death of the Virgin in 
the second year after the Ascension, relates how 
the Apostles, us many as were still alive, were 
miraculously summoned from distant countries 
to attend her deathbed. Other af>ocryphal nar- 
ratives, on the conlrnry, date their dispersion 
24 years after the Ascension (Tischendorf, Apot-aL 
Apncr, Proleg. p. xliii), while a tnidition widely 
circulated in the 2nd century told how the 
Apostles remained by their Master's orders seven 
or twelve years in Jerusalem, before g<'ine forth 
on their missionary enterprises in the ftentile 
world. (Seven years is the time fixed in the 
Clementine Kcf^oqnitions^ i. 43, ix. 29; twelve 
years in Apollonius ap. Euseb., //. E. v. 18, and 
in Pdri d Pau'i Pnudiratio op. Clement. Alex. 
Strom, vi. 5, p. 762, Potter; cf. Hilgenfeld, Sov, 

C ^ 



Taiam, extra Ccm, recepi. iv. p. 58.) The lattei 
tradition assumes the existence of the legend of 
the Apostles dividing the countries of the earth 
by lot. This legend was known not only to Ease- 
bins (//. E. iii. 1) bnt perhaps also to Origen 
(though it remains doubtful how far the citation 
there made by Eusebius from Origen extends), 
and is fouiid circumstantially related by Rutinus 
{H. E. i. 9, and in the Expos, Symb. Apostol.) and 
Socrates {H. E, i. 19). Compare St. Jerome (m 
Jetaiam 34, iii. p. 279, Martianay) and Nice- 
phorus (//. E, ii. 39). Out of this tradition 
grew, as early as the 2nd century, the so-called 
8<ar(£|cif or Siaro^ol xAw itwo<rr6A.ttw as well as 
the itHaxh (9i9axo^) or 9tSiJurKa\la rmw itwo- 
cr6\nw. Notwithstanding the very extensive 
changes and amplifications which these works 
have experienced in the course of centuries, we 
can still find traces of the existence of three 
distinct original collections, of which the first 
forms the basis of the first six books, the second 
of the seventh book, the third of the eighth 
book of our present Apostolical Constitutions 
(Constitutiones Apostol,, ed. Lagarde, Leipzig and 
London, 1862). 

Inasmuch as all these collections are more or 
less connected by their contents, it is somewhat 
diflScult to determine their true relation to the 
Apostolical Constitutions as preserved in Syriac, 
Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions. The first 
fix books we still possess in a more ancient form 
in the Syriac IHdascaiia Apostoiorum (published 
by Lagarde, Leipsic 1855), in the Abyssinian Con- 
ftitutions, and in one part of the Coptic rollec- 
tion (published by TatUm, Lendon, 1848). They 
are attributed to Clemens Romanus, and are ad- 
dressed to Gentile Christians. Hilgenfeld has 
attempted to restore the original Jewish-Chris- 
tian work, which formed the basis of this {Xov. 
Test, extra Can. liec. iv. p. 79 sqq. Compare also 
his Apost. Voter, Halle 1853, p. 802 sqq.). The 
basis of the 8th Book of the Constitutions is the 
treatise vcpl xapi9iiirtȴ attributed to Hippo- 
lytus (comp. ^ivri^tis rmp ayittw hwotrriKvp 
wcpl x<*poTor(Mr hih *\inro\{rrov, in HipptVfti 
0pp. ed. Lagarde, p. 73). It likewise corresponds 
to Books iii-vi of the Coptic Constitutions. 
The seventh book, whose contents stand in close 
connection with those of the first six books, has 
an introduction occupying 20 chapters, and con- 
sisting of a moralizing treatise concerning *Mhe 
Two Ways," which is preserved in part in its 
original form in the introduction to the Coptic 
Constitutions. The basis of this treatise is the 
•econd part of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas 
(cc 18-21). A very ancient recension of this 
work, alr^idy known, according to Lagarde and 
Hilgenfeld, to Clemens Alexandrinus, is the so- 
called Judicium Petri ixpi/M Tltrpou), or Duae 
Ftkitf, which is edited in Hilgenfeld*s Novum 
Testam, extra Canonen receptum (Fasc. iv. p. 
95 sqq.), after Bickell {Geschichie des Kirchen- 
recKts, Giessen, 1843), Lagarde {Reliquiae Juris 
Ecclesiastici anUquissimae, Vienna 1856, p. 74, 
•qq.), and Pitra {Juris Ecclesiastici Grae>'or>im 
Jiistoria et Mon'/mertta, torn, i., Rome 1864, p. 
75, sqq.)L According to this work the Twelve 
Apostles, before separating for their different 
spheres of labour in the various countries which 
thev have assigned to themselves, assemble to- 
gether for the purpose of making common ordi- 
nances for tho whole of Christendom. Such ordi- 

nances and regulations, either attributed to t 

Apostles themselves and, as here, assigned 

groups to one or other among them, or put in 

the month of distinguished apostolical teachi 

(a Hermas, a Barnabas, an Ignatius, a Clemei 

or a Polycarp), were in very various forms 

active circulation in the 2nd and 3rd centuri 

The Ebionitic wtpio9oi n/rpov, which were t 

groundwork of the Clementine Recognitions, i 

already familiar with three classes of apostolii 

regulations, the observance of which is incui 

bent on the Gentile Churches. The first 

these contains 30, the second 60, the third 1< 

such Mandates {Recogn. iv. 36)l One very < 

collection, not quite identical with any aboi 

named, is the Syriac Doctrina Apostolonun, edit 

by Cureton, and also by Mai (Script. Vet. Nc 

Collection tom. x.), and Lagarde {Reliquine J\ 

Eccles. antiquiss.y, This contains 27 Cano 

The Ethiopic collection contains 38, the Eg} 

tian 79, the Greek in its older form 50, in 

later 85 Apostolical Canons. In like manner b 

dition assigned the composition of the Creed 

the Apostles, each Apostle having one article 

himself (see Rufinus, Expos. Symboii Aposiol., a 

Pseudo-Augustin., Sermo 1 15). Besides these th^ 

were current during the 2nd century several oti 

works entitled * the Preaching,' * Preaching 

or * Doctrine ' {icfipvyfio^ Kfipvyfiara, and 8m 

axaXla) of Peter, Paul, Thaddaens, Matthias, 

James. These from the first contained both 

dactic and narrative portions. To this class 

writings belonged the Jewish-Christian mipt 

/iora Tl4rpov^ which Hilgenfeld has shown to 

the groundwork of the three first books of 1 

Clementine Recognitions, the Catholic icfiptr^ 

nirpov kvlL Ila^Xou (Hilgenfeld, p. 52 sqq-X < 

Syriac Doctrina Addiei (Cureton, p. 6 sqq.), i 

Gnostic TlapaiSffus MarSiov (Hilgenfeld, p. 

sqq.), and the Ebionitic &yaj3a^/iitfl *Ieur»/3ov ( 

Epiph. Haer. xxx. 16> The Precepts of Pe 

and Paul {Petri et Pauli Praecefda, Utrpov . 

Ila^Aotf Bmrd^tis) still exist in MS in bi 

Greek and Latin texts {Fabric. Cod. Apocr. N. 

tom. ii. p. 932). They are according to Gn 

{Spicileg. i. 85 sq.) essentially identiciil with 1 

latter part of the 8th book of the Apostoli 

Constitutions (c 32 sqq.). A late recension 

the icfipvyfia Il^pov, which however in t 

form cannot be dated earlier than the .5th e 

tnry, has been published in a Syriac version 

Cureton {Anc. Sf/r. J)tjc. p. 35 sqq.). It is 

titled *The preaching of Peter in the City 

Rome.' After a brief historical introduce 

the " Preaching " itself follows, which has a soi 

what Monophysite colouring, and then the leg< 

(drawn from the Acts of Peter) of the Aposti 

conflict with Simon Magus nt Rome, and 

martyrdom there along with St. Paul. 1 

book, notwithstanding its later date, is of coi 

derable importance, as being evidently based 

very old materials. It pntves how closely t 

kind of literature was connected at an early d 

with the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. On 

other hand these latter (e. q. the Catholic A 

Petri et Pauliy and likewise the Acts of Barthc 

mew, Philip, and others) are wont to cont 

more or less detailed didactic expositions. I 

similar way we find in the Jewish-Christ 

J'jttmeys of Peter y trtpioioi lltrpou traces of 

older work, the Prewhinqs of Peter, alrw 

mentioned, which consisted chiefly, if not 



dvMTvly, of speeches attributed to that Apostle. 
A critical eramination therefore of the apocrjphal 
▲cU of the Apostles canoot be conducted without 
tskisf iato aooouot the« other works concerning 
their *^ Doctrine ** or "* Preaching.*' 

And we 6nd accordingly that these rarioof 
* Acts,** as well as the hard^tis and SiSaxol r&r 
krwtriXmm^ are wont to take the traditional 
Parting of the Apostles as their starting-point. 
This IS the case not only with the Acta Tkumae, 
bnt also with the Hittoria Joamais of pseudo- 
Proehoms, the Greek Acts of Andrew and Mat- 
thew, the Ai:ia Jacobi Ze^/eduei in the Apostolical 
Histories of Abdias, and with the £dessene legend 
•f Thaddacus. The legends also concerning the 
assigBmeat by lot of their various provinces to 
pirticalar Apostles rary considerably, which is 
the less to be wonderea at as the names of the 
Ape»tlcs themselves are not in all such tradi- 
tioas the same. Some, as Thaddaeos and Bar- 
thUomew, are reckoned now among the Twelve 
Apoitles, now among the Seventy Disciples. Jude 
h frequently identified with "niomas, and at a 
later date with Thaddaeus or with Simon. Else- 
wkere Xathaaael is counted among the Apostles, 
vkile Cephas is distinguished from Peter, and 
Levi flnom Matthew. (For Thaddaeus compare 
the Ada TkadJaei and Om$t, Ap, vi. 14, with 
Eaieb. ff. K. L 13, and the Syriac Dodrma 
Apoti^Jormm In Cnreton ; for Bartholomew, the 
Aia HartMomaei and C*m»t, Ap, vi. 14, with 
thf Ada Pktlippi ; for Jnde-Thomas Eoseb. H. E, 
L 13, the Ada Tnouiae, and the Syriac Doctrma 
AffMoivntm; for Jude-Thaddaeus, the scholion 
to the Constitutions in Lagarde, p. 282, and 
pcudo-Hippolytns also in Lagarde, p. 283 ; in 
the &nt pUoe he is also called Judas Zelotes, a 
Buae which is also found in the Chronographer 
tf the year 354 ; for Jude-Simon see pseudo-Do- 
rothsQs in the Bonn edition of the Chronioon 
I'Mckak torn. ii. p. 138; for Nathanael the 
Jmiikimm Petri; for Cephas the Jftdiciwn Petri 
ani Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. H. E. i. 12; for 
Levi, Heradeon in Gem. Strom, iv. 9, p. 595, 
Pi<t<r.) The Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 14), 
fcUowiag Matt. x. 2 sq., enumerate the Apostles 
thos: — Peter and Andrew, James and John the 
.ions of Zebedee, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomns 
sad Matthew, James (the son) of Alphaeus (Ja- 
o»bes Alphaei) and Lebbaeus with the surname 
Thaddaews, Simon the Cananite and Matthias ; to, 
vhsoi are added James the Lord*8 Brother and 
B«sh«p of Jerusalem, and Paul the Teacher of 
iktkiiemX\le%{lMM'tir OaUium^ 6 rmw i0tm¥ 8i8d<r- 
The Acts of Th<mias follow the cata* 
in St. Luke (vl. 14 sq.), differing from it 
•oUj IB calling Simon nut i (nKmr^s but 6 
tmwmBi ; while in substituting for Thaddaeus 
Jadr (the brother) of James (Judas Jacobi) they 
■sie two Judes among the Apostles besides 
J«Ui Ucariot, vis» Judas Jacobi and Judas- 
Th«niw The Jtdicium Petri gives the follow- 
af list : — J(«hn, Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Philip, 
StMun, James, Nathanael, Thomas, Cephas, Bar- 
ttsiiitw. Ilf>re then Nathanael and Cephas 
Mrepy the places of Thaddaeus and James (the 
Ma) sf Alphaeus. In the Liher Generatu/nutn 
(the Ckr mtrom of Hippolytus) there is no cata- 
hfae ef Ap«Mtles in the present text. The Chro- 
tsfi n»h< I of the year 354 enumerates them as 
httovs :-» Peter and Andrew, James and John 
(tht soM of Ztbeim), Philip and Thomas, Bar- 

tholomew and Matthew, James (Jacobus AlphaeiX 
and Judas Zelotes and Simon the Cananite ; the 
Scholion to the Coruiitviions in Lagarde thus : — > 
Peter and Andrew, James (Jacobus Zebedaei) and 
John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas [and 
Matthew] James (Jacobus Alphaei) and Thad- 
daeus-Lebbaeus or Judas-Zelotes, Simon the Ca- 
nanite and Matthias; pseudo-Hippolytus thus: 
— Peter, Paul, James (Jacobus Zebedaei X John, 
Andrew, I'hilip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, 
Judas Jacobi, Thaddaeus called also Lebbaeus and 
Judas, James the Lord's brother, Simon the Ca- 
nanite or 6 ^i)Xs»r^r, Matthias; to whom are 
then added the Evangelists, Luke, Mark, and 
Philip ; pseudo-Dorotheus thus : — Peter, Andrew, 
James (Jacobus Zebedaei), John, Philip, Bartho- 
lomew, Thomas, Matthew, Judas Jaoobi, Simon- 
Judas, Matthias, Simon 6 (iiKvTtis; the cata- 
logue in the Chron. Pasch, (ii. 142) entitled rmw 
1/3' iiwo<rr6\mif al worp^Scu (?) thus : — Peter and 
Andi*ew, James and John the sons of Zebedee, 
Philip, Thomas. Bartholomew, Thaddaeus>Leb- 
baeus, James (Jacobus Alphaei), Matthew-Levi, 
Simon the Cananite, Simon Zelotes, Judas Isca- 
riot. The Syriac Doctrina Apostolorum in Cnre- 
ton gives no complete list of the Apostles ; but, 
in speaking of the division of the respective pro- 
vinces, it enumerates James (the Lord's brother^ 
Mark, Judas-Thomas, Simon-Cephas, John, An- 
drew, Luke, Addaeus (Thaddaeus), and his dis- 
ciple Aggaeus. Several of these lists hsve no 
further significance for the critical inquirer, 
being simply attempts to reconcile the various 
catalogues given in the New Testament. Such, 
for instance, is the identification of Thaddaeus 
with Judas Jacobi (so already Kufinus in Praef, 
Conun, Orig. in Epist, ad Jiofn.y. The assignment 
moreover of special provinces to different Apos- 
tles in the Scholion to the Constitutions of pseudo- 
Hippolytus and pseudo-Dorotheus may in consi- 
deration of the late origin of these documents be 
here left out of account. On the other hand it 
seems worthy of remark, that in the older cata- 
logues St. PauPs name is either omitted alto- 
gether, or added afterwards, as in the Constitu- 
tions, by a later hand. In the assignment of the 
various provinces he is altogether passed over, 
his peculiar missionary Held being given to others, 
so that no room is letl fur the operations of the 
Apostle of the Gentiles. St. Paul indeed, ac- 
cording to the older view, which in this species 
of literature was adhered to even in later times, 
did not at all belong to the closed circle and 
sacred number of the Twelve. Even the Syriao 
JJtidrinit Apostolorum^ which finds a niche for 
such disciples of Apostles as St. Luke and Aggaeus, 
makes only a passing mention of Si. Paul, and 
that first in connection with Timothy, where it 
relates their journeying together through parts 
of Syria and Ciiicia to impart to the Churches 
there the laws and ordinances of the Apostles, 
and once again afterwards towaids the end where 
it speaks of St. Paul's journey to Rome and his 
martyrdom in that city. His own proper mis- 
sionary field, Ephesus and all Asia, Thessalonica, 
Corinth and Achaia, is on the other hand assigned 
to St. John. It is unquestionable that such a 
depreciation of the Apostle of the Gentiles would 
in later tiroes have been quite impossible, had 
not some very early tradition been equally ua- 
£ivourable to his claims. 
Still less agreement is to be fotmd in nspeet 



to the missionary field of labour assigned to the 
▼arions ApostlM than in respect to their names. 
Some of these discrepancies arise from simple 
sahstitution of one name for another ; as when 
St. Andrew, according to one accoant, is sent 
among the Scythian tribes on the borders of the 
Euxine (Origen ap. Eoseb. JET. E. iii. 1), or ac- 
cording to another to Achaia (^Acta Andreaey 
Tischendorf p. 105 sq. ; Abdias Hist, Apost, iii. 
2, 25 sq.), or when St. Matthew, who according 
to the older legend also laboured in Pontus (^Acta 
Andreae et Matthaei^ Tisch. p. 132 sq., Acta et 
Martyrium Maithaeiy ib. p. 167 sq.) is after- 
wards transferred to Ethiopia (Socrates H. E. 
i. 19 ; Abdias HisU Apost. Tii). Other seemingly 
discrepant narratir^ come, on closer inspection, 
to the same thing: for example, the tradition 
that St. Thomas laboured in Parthia (Origen ap. 
Euseb. H. E. iii. 1 ; Clem. Becogn, iz. 29), and 
the apparently contradictory statement that he 
was the Apostle of India {Acta Thomae^ Tisch. 
p. 190 sq.). At the same time there are tra- 
ditions which are really and positively opposed 
to each other, as for instance the legend of St. 
Peter's labours in Rome, and the other tradition 
that the Prince of the Apostles had worked 
along with St. Andrew and St. Matthew in ** the 
land of the barbarians,*' ue, among the non- 
Greek tribes of the east and south-east of the 
Black Sea, or in the kingdom of the Cimmerian 
Bosporus {Acta Andreae et Mutthaei, Tisch. p. 
151 ; Acta Petri et Andreae in Tisdi. Apocal. 
Apocr. p. 161 sq.). The antiquity and credi- 
bility of these rarious traditions respectively is 
very different. 

According to the oldest forms of the tradition, 
tho Apostles divide into three groups : of which 
the first (Peter and Andrew, Matthew and Bar> 
tholomew) is said to have preached in the regions 
of the Black Sea ; the second (Thomas and Thad- 
daeus, and Simon the Cananite) in Parthia ; the 
third (John and Philip) in Asia Minor. With 
the exception then of three Apostles — James the 
son of Zebedee, who early sufiered martyrdom in 
Jerusalem, the other James (Jacobus Alphaei), 
whom tradition universally confounded with the 
Lord's brother, and the substitute Matthias, of 
whom nothing more was known, — we have in 
these three groups all the Apostles together. 
They went forth two and two (Mark vi. 7), as is 
already indicated in the form of the catalogue in 
Matt. X. 2 sq. (compare also Luke x. 1, where the 
same command is given to the Seventy). Even 
the assignment of spheres of labour to the dif- 
ferent groups follows the order of names in St. 
Matthew, except only that the precedence of 
Matthew to Thomas, which is found in Mark iii. 
18 and Luke vi. 15, is here assumed. So we 
have first Peter and Andrew, then (with the omis- 
sion of James the son of Zebedee, who was be- 
headed in Jerusalem) John and Philip, then Bar- 
tholomew and Matthew, then Thomas and (with 
the omission of James identified with tho Lord's 
brother, and therefore supposed to remain behind 
in Jerusalem) Thaddaeus, and finally Simon the 
Cananite, for whom St. Matthews catalogue 
provided no companion. 

(1) The first group consists then of Peter, An- 
drew, Matthew, and Bartholomew. St. Andrew, 
who according to a tradition apparently known 
already to Origen (in Euseb. //. E, iii. 1) laboured 
in Scythia, is made by another tradition cer- 

tainly older than the Gnostic Acts to h« 
worked along with St. Matthew among the A 
thropophagi on the Cimmerian Bosporus {Ac 
Andteae et MattKaei^ Acta et Martyrium Mattha 
comp. Gutschmid L c p. 392) and in "t 
land of the barbanans " to the east and soat 
east of the Greek colonies in Pontus. For t 
preaching of St. Andrew at Sinope there was ; 
ancient local tradition appealing to his chair 
white stone, which long continued to be shoi 
in that city (Epiphan. Monachus, ed. Dressi 
1843, p. 47 sq. ; and the Greek Menaea for i 
Nov.). Other traditions point to Sebastopo 
in Olchis, Apsaros, Trebizond, Amasia, Nicai 
and Nicomedia, as having been tho seats of tl 
Apostle (Abdias, H, A» iii. sq. ; pseudo-Dorothe 
in Ckron. Fasch. ed. Bonn, ii. p. 136; pseud 
Hippolytus in Lagarde Ccntt. Ap. p. 283 ; and t 
Greek Menaea for 30 Nov.). The first canonii 
Epistle of St. Peter leads us by its address in 
the same region, being directed to the strange 
of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadoc 
Asia, and Bithynia; and the same is the a 
with the already mentioned Acts of Peter a 
Andrew, which represent the two brothers 
meeting in the land of the barbarians. So HI 
wise the Syriac Doctrina Apastfjiorum (Cureti 
1. c. p. 33) assigns to St. Peter, besides Antioi 
Syria, and Cilicia, also Galatia and Pontus ; a 
that not only it would seem on the authority 
the First Epistle, inasmuch as that epistle does i 
mention tne earlier places. These regions I 
longed indeed, as well as the city of Roe 
which is afterwards referred to, to the m 
sionary sphere of St. Paul, who in this work 1 
no province assigned him in the division roi 
among the Apostles. In the case of St. Bartl 
lomew likewise, his missionary field of laboui 
not to be sought elsewhere than in the kingd* 
of the Bosporus. The Indians, to whom Euseb 
makes him journey (JET. E. v. 10), are sim] 
confounded with the " Sindians," over whom t 
Bosporian kings of the house of Polemo \> 
rule (Gutschmid, L c p. 174 sq.). The territi 
assigned in the Acts of St. Bartholomew to ] 
lymius or Polemius, t. e. Polemo II, king 
Pontus and Bosporus, and then of Pontus i 
Cilicia, corresponds exactly to the region assig] 
in the other legend to the Apostles Peter, j 
drew, and Matthew ; with which agrees likev 
the connection marked by the legend in Euseb 
{If. E. V. 10) between the missionar)- laboun 
St. Bartholomew and the diffusion of St. M 
thew's Gospel. Armenian local traditions p< 
to the same neighbourhood, making the seem 
St. Bartholomew's death to be the city of Arel 
Alban, or Albanopolis, in the Greater Arme- 
also called Korbanopolis and Urbanopolis 
Gutschmid 1. c. p. 174, who supposes this to 
the Armenian metropolis Erowandashat), w! 
the tradition preserved in the Acta Phih 
(Tisch. Acta Ap. Apocr. pp. 88, 91, 94; coi 
the fragment from the pretended Crato in 
Appendix to Steph. Praetorius* edition of 
Epistle to the Lnodicenes, 1595, which is 
found in Fabricius 1. c. ii. p. 685 sq. 931 
Tisch. 1. c. proleg. p. Ixx.) places it in Lycao 
a country near to Cilicia, which, for a time for 
part of the dominions of Polemo II. 

(2) The second group of Apostles is transfei 
to Mesopotamia and Parthia. Not to speak I 
of Babylon, from whence the First Epistle ol 



Fettr it dated, the local traditions of Edesm laj 
eUim Bot only to Thaddaeos (Easeb. H. E, i. 13, 
Ihctrima Addaei and Doctrina Apott. in Cureion, 
aad the Acta Thmddaei in Tischendoif) but also 
to St. Thomas (EoseU H. E. L 13; AsKemani 
BAln OrientaiiM^ iii. p. ii. p. 34 sq. ; Rufin. H. E. 
iL &, Abdias Hid. Apod, iz. 25 ; Fioreniini Mar- 
lyrdL Hiercnym, p. 147; oomp. Thilo Acta 
Tkamm p. 105 sq.). To the fonner (Thaddaeus) 
k ascribed in the Acta Thaddaei (Tisch. p. 263 
sq.) fire jears' missionary activity in Amida 
on the 'n^ris, after which he is said to have 
ioonered throagh the cities of Syria and to 
asTe died a natanl death at Berytns. A some- 
what different accoant is giren in the Doc- 
trma Addaei (Cureton 1. c. p. 20 sq.), according 
to which the Apostle, after m«uiy years' work at 
Frisisa, dies in that city. Thomas, on the other 
ksnd, is in the CUmentifte BecognUions (ix. 29), 
s«l by Origen (Euseb. H. E, iii. 1., if the pas- 
Kfe in question be really part of tho citation 
frnn OrigenX uid to hare preached in Parthia, 
tod, according to the Gnostic Acta Thomaef in 
laiia, ijg. (as Gutschmid has shown, 1. c p. 162 
iq.) in Aria, Drangiana, and Arachosia, over 
vkich ooontries, in the years a.d. 7-29, the 
Gaadaphoros mentioned in the Acts reigned as 
king, himself deriring his descent from a Par- 
Utan dynasty (Gatschmid, 1. c). The bearing of 
tkts Utter circumstance, howerer, on the legend 
•^ Si. Thomas is perhaps of small significance, in- 
anmch as it is Mown by Gutschmid's inrestiga- 
tions that the Acts of Thomas are really based 
w a Buddhist work containing the history of a 
sonverDon, the scene of which most hare been 
Arachosia, and its date the times of this Gunda- 
pboras. We can hardly suppose that this Chris- 
tian recasting of a Buddhist fiction, which 
BBplies considerable intercourse between Chris- 
tian partias and the rotaries of Buddhism, could 
hsTo been already known to Origen. It seems 
indeed, that the last editor of the Clementine 
BecoandionM certainly made use, in the corre- 

rdiag portion of his work, of ** the Book of 
laws of the Countries," which was the com- 
position of a disciple o( Bard^anes; and yet, 
aithouf^h the relations of Bardesanes to Budd- 
kion might make it appear probable that these 
Ada Tkumae were already in existence when 
that book was written, it seems certain that the 
Matement that St. Thomas preached among the 
Puthian^ could not have been derived from the 
uae M>un», but that, on the contrary, we must 
urame here, as elsewhere, the existence of an 
•srlier Ebionttic tradition (comp. Uilgenfeld, 
Oememt. KecognitUmen und Ilcmiiien p. 310). 
On the other hand, we have an important state- 
meat in Moms of Chorene (ii. 32, 3, p. 144 ed. 
Witftf«)i, who wrote between A.D. 459 and a.d. 
481, and in Suidas (s. v. mnrrii), according to 
vhich the city of Edessa was possessed, during 
tie years 91-108, by the Armenian branch of 
tkt Parthian dynasty (Gutschmid, p. 171). In 
siv case, the boundary of the Parthian empire 
nut have approached at that time so near to 
ilessa as to make a journey of the Apostle from 
tsrace into Parthia appear sufficiently credible, 
viule the earlier tradition knew certainly as 
btlt of a preaching of St. Thomas among the 
ladiaas as it did of that of St. Bartholomew. 
Fmrther, it mm to Persia, ie. the Parthian ter- 
Merj, thai th« Acta of Simon and Jude in 

Abdias (ffid. Apod. vi. 7 sq.) assign the mis> 
sionary activity of those Apostles. Their royal 
convert Xerxes (or rather Nerseh), who accord- 
ing to the 'Acts' reigned in Babylon, is Var- 
danes, the son of Artaban III., about whose 
history the * Acts ' otherwise prove themselves 
to be well instructed (Gutschmid p. 382 sq.)^ 
although the date of their composition certainly 
falls late in the times of the Scissanidae. Mosea 
of Chorene (ii. 20. 16-21, p. 140 sq.) likewise u 
acquainted with the legend about Simon, ac- 
cording to which that Apostle preached the 
Gospel about a.d. 42 in Persia and under a king 
named Nerseh, and this legend is also connected 
in the authorities employed by him with that of 
Abgar king of Edessa. (See Gutechmid p. 381 
sq., and article **Gotarzes" in Ailg. Encyclop. 
der W, und AT.). The fact that Moses of Cho- 
rene mentions only Simon and not his com- 
panion Judas agrees moreover with the subor- 
dinate position which the latter occupies in the 
Acts of Abdias. There also Simon is the leading 
person, and Judas remains entirely in the back- 
ground. The original legend must therefore 
have named the former Apostle only, and not 
the latter. The central point of Simon's labours 
is according to the Acts, as already indicated, 
the city of Babylon (Abdias vi. 8, 19, 20), 
whence he issues forth in order to travel in 
company with Judas through the twelve pro- 
vinces of the Persian monarchy, and finally to 
suffer a martyr's death in the city of Suanir (or 
Suanis, according to the reading in the Marty rd. 
UieronynCy. By Suanir we are to understand 
(according to the conjecture of Tillcmont and 
Gutschmid) the Suani, a tribe in the northern 
part of Colchis. Moses of Chorene makes the 
death of Simon take place in Veriosphora,, as 
Gutschmid has shown, in the land of the Ibe- 
rians, on the southern and eastern slopes of the 
Caucasus, with which agrees the Georgian local 
legend, which claims Simon for Egrisse, i^e. Col- 
chis. (Cf. Klaproth Reise in den Kaukasus ii. 
113, Gutschmid p. 383 sq.) In Colchis how- 
ever the missionary territories of both the 
Simons, that of Simon Peter and that of Simon 
Zelotes or the Cananite, would meet or overlap 
one another, and a series of missionarv efforts 
extending from Babylon to the Caucasus is not a 
very probable undertaking. There is, on the 
other hand, no need to derive the legend of the 
sojourn of Simon Cananites at Babylon from 
1 Pet. V. 13, nor to admit the highly improbable 
supposition that the traditional fame of the 
great A[*ostle Simon Peter should have given 
place to that of his less distinguished namesake. 
We might more readily find an explanation of 
this transference of Simon Cunanites to Colchis 
in the assumption that the older tradition of 
Simon Peter's presence there had gradually 
fallen into forgetfulness under the influence of 
the legend concerning his work at Rome, were it 
not for the evidence afforded {e.g. in the Gnostic 
Acts of Peter and Andrew, which date from the 
3rd century) that the older tradition was not so 
easily nor so soon displaced. With regard to 
Babylon, there would be a still greater difficultr 
in accounting for the confusion between the two 
Apostles in a similar way bv an ap{ieal to the 
dating in the First Epistle of St. Peter. If the 
name of the place were understood literally, it 
would exclude the need of supposing that Simon 



Cananites was ever at Babylon, for it pointed to 
the presence of Simon Peter there; while on 
the other hand, if it were allegorical ly inter* 
preted with most of the Fathers, as a designa- 
tion of the city of Rome, there would remain no 
farther occasion to find an Apostolical snbstitnte 
for Simon Peter at Babylon. The connection 
on the other hand, into which the histories of 
Abdias bring St. Jade with St. Simon, is merely 
artificial, the prodact of later reflection. Jade 
or Judas is, in the older form of the Edessene 
legend, identified with Thomas (Eus. H. E, i 
13; Acta Thomas p. 190 sq. ; Doctrina Apf»- 
tohrvmy p. 33), and in later ones with Thaddaeus ; 
like Thaddaeus, he is often spoken of as one of 
the Seventy (cf. Assemani Bihl. Orient, i. 318, 
iii. 1. 302, 611 ; Miceph. H. E. ii. 40). Side by 
side with this we find another legend, similar to 
that of the Ada Thaddaei, which brings the 
Apostle Jude (Thaddaeus) from Edessa to Assyria, 
and from Assyria to Phoenicia, and in the latter 
country makes him suffer a martyr's death (As- 
semani, BitU. Or. iii. 2. 13 sq.). 

The conclusion then at which we arrive is this : 
•^The oldest traditions assign to the Apostles 
Peter, Andrew, Matthew, and Bartholomew, as 
their sphere of missionary labour, a region to the 
north of Palestine, extending into the kingdom of 
the Bosporus and embracing the whole line of 
coast to the east and south of the Black Sea, 
especially. Pontus and a portion of Armenia ; 
while to the Apostles Thaddaeus, Thomas, and 
Simon Cananites, an eastward region is assigned, 
Thaddaeus being placed in Edessa, Thomas in 
Edessa and the Parthian empire, and Simon 
Cananites also among the Parthians and espe- 
cially at Babylon. It is only necessary to remark 
that Jews abounded in all these countries, in 
order to indicate the Jewish-Christian character 
of such traditions. Besides the region between 
the Euphrates and the Tigris, in which according 
to Josephus (Ant. xi. 5. 2) innumerable myriads 
of Jews were to be found, we may refer for the 
kingdom of the Bosporus to Gutschmid p. 177, 
and the inscriptions there cited ; for Pontus to 
Acts xriii. 2 ; for Sinope in particular, to the 
fiict that it is mentioned as the home of the 
Jewish translator of the Bible, Aquila (Epiph. de 
PonfL et Mens. 14, and Sifra, Behar i. 9, ap. 
GrUtz Ossch. der Juden iv. p. 439, 2nd ed., 
and Anger de Onkelo i. 9). In the Acts of Bar- 
tholomew we have simply the story of a Jewish 
conversion annexed bodily as it stood; for Po- 
lemo II. according to Josephus (Ant. xz. 7, 3) 
became, in consequence of hit marriage with the 
Herodian Princess Bemice, a proselyte to Ju- 
daism, but afterwards relapsed into heathenism 
(comp. Gutschmid, pp. 174, 177). The same 
may be suspected to have been the case with 
the legendary history of Thaddaeus, if at least 
the Izates king of Adiabene, mentioned by Jo- 
sephus (Ant. XX. 2) as a proselyte to Judaism, were 
really (as Gutschmid assumes, p. 172) the an- 
cestor of the Christian kings Abgar VII. and 
Abgar VIII. 

(3) The third apostolic group is assigned to 
Asia Minor, and consists of St. John and St. Philip, 
the former of whom is said to have laboured at 
Epheaus, the latter at Hierapolis in Phrygia. 
Tnis tradition in respect io both Apostles was 
already fixed in the 2nd century, and in regard 
Io St John is generally held to be sufficiently 

accredited. It is at any rate certain that frof 
A.D. 170-180 and onwards the churches of Ad 
Minor were unanimous in regarding Ej^esus i 
having been the last home anil residence of S' 
John (Apollonius ap. Ens. H, E. v. 18 ; Polj 
crates of Ephesus, %b. iii. 31, v. 24; Irenaev 
Hd^r, iii. 3. 4 and elsewhere, Eusebius. H. E. v. 2< 
24). The statement of Iraueus however, coi 
ceming what he had received from the mouth < 
the aged Polycarp in reference to St. John, real 
on a confusion of the Apostle with a preabyti 
of the same name, who muat have lived aa 
taught in Asia Minor and especially in Ephesn 
down to the times of Trajan [see howevi 
Polycarp]. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, tl 
contemporary and fHend of Pdlyoarp, was pn 
bably an immediate disciple of the Presbytc: 
but certainly not of the Apostle (see his o« 
words in Euseb. H, E. iii. 39, and compare thcf 
with Eusebius' remarks therenpon, whidi gii 
the right interpretation of Papias' laitgnafi 
comp. also Euseb. ff. E, iii. S6> [Papia&] ] 
was therefore a misunderstanding mi the part i 
Irenaeus which first made Papias, aa well aa k 
contemporary Polycarp, an immediatft disciple < 
the Apostle St. John (Naer. v. 33. 4> Tkia Jdu 
called the " elder" or "* presbyter" (ut. a diicip] 
of Apostles), who was from the close of tkt 2a 
century more and more confounded with tl 
Apostle, is named in an old tradition, aa the sw 
cessor of Timothy in the bishopric of Ephesn 
The Apostoiical ConstUutions mention him in cloi 
connection with Ariston (or AristionX with whoi 
he is also associated by Papias, and reconci 
the contradictions in the popular tradition h 
making him to have been oitlained by the Apoeti 
St. John (vii. 46). (Compare the account draw 
by Photius, BiM, 254, from the Martyrdom i 
Timothy.) Abdias also makes the Apostle hin 
self to have been Timothy's successor (Hit 
Apost, V. 2). And if some scholars of our on 
time have thrown doubts not only on the pn 
longed life and labours of St. John at Ephesi 
extending down to the times of Trajan, but evt 
on the ^t of his ever having lived in As 
Minor (so, following the precedent of Liitze 
berger, quite recently Keim in his GescMck 
Jesu von Nazara I. 160 sq.), their objectioi 
seem to be quite overborne by the direct ev 
dence of the Seven Epistles to Asiatic Church< 
in the Apocalypse, and the testimony there give 
to his presence in the isle of Patmos, even if 
be granted that the Ephesian tradition may hai 
been founded on the statements in that bool 
It is however certain that the earliest remini 
cences of the church in Asia Minor, indudii 
those of the episcopate of Timothy at Ephesn 
refer to the labours of St. Paul (Keim p. 16' 
in that region, and that the subsequent obscun 
tion of the memory of the Apostle of the Gai 
tiles by that of the Son of Thunder and Pilla: 
Apostle (Gal. ii. 10) St. John, was due in grei 
measure to that Jewish-Christian tendency whii 
even sought to exclude St. Paul fVom his peci 
liar foundations at Thessalonica and Corini 
and in Achaia, and to substitute the mem<M 
of the beloved disciple (Doctrina Apost,, Cur 
ton 1. cp. 34). The later traditions of tl 
Church followed unsuspectingly these Jewis] 
Christian fictions, when their original purpoi 
was no longer apparent. Not only Cathol 
fathers, like Clemens Alexandrinus, Origeni Ts 



taUtai, Im^ Vat aUo thoM Gnostic Acts (of 
wkkh we now poiem what is genaine onl j in 
frtfimUi, and the rest in forms more or less 
alltfed bj Catholic manipulation) speak nnani- 
Boofilj of the residence of St. John both in 
IftMsvs and Patmos (see Ada Jo/tannis in Tisch- 
mdsrf ; Prochonu d« Vita MiractdU ei iUsttin- 
tiime JcanmiM ; paeodo-lleiiitns de Pataione Joanr 
M, aad Abdiaa Hid. Apodal, Ub. t). His ban- 
idbmcat to Patmoe bj Domitian is mentioned 
int by Irvaaciis {ffatr. t. 30, 3), Clemens Alez- 
MiriavB {Quit ditn talvdur c 42, p. 959 
Fttt«r) awl the Gnostic Acts (cf. pseudo-Pro- 
cb««aX which record the conrersion of the 
vbolc iaUad bj the Apostle. His legendary 
■srtyrdovii in boiling oil at the command of the 
■■te emperor is prol»bly in its origin a Gnostic 
tmdition, the earlier form of which placed the 
teem mm ot at Ephesos (Abdias t. 2), while local 
iaterests at a later period transferred it to Rome. 
hcvdo-Prodioras, against the nsoal tradition, 
MMTta the composition not of the Apocalypse 
Wt ef the Gospel in Patmos (compare also the 
ywaio >Hippolytas in Lagarde p. 283), and states 
tbit ose of the seren descons who accompanied 
8L John in all his trarels senred him on this 
•eeMian as amannensis (psendo-Prochoms p. 46 
i|.% Another bat macn later author assigns 
this elBce dirvctly to Papias, and has the teme- 
rity to cite the witness of Papias himself as his 
iathority (compare the table of contents to the 
Qoepcl of St. John in a MS published by Car- 
Ai«al Tbomasans, 0pp. ed. Vezzosi i. p. 344 with 
Hilgenfeld's obserrations thereon, Zeitsckr. fOr 
wimemackanL Theohgie^ 1865, p. 77 ; and the pas- 
sige from the Catena Patrum in Jwwu.^ edited 
by Corder. ap. Hilgenfeld p. 79). 

As St. John, so also the other Apostle of Asia 
Hiasr, St. Philip, has a namesake with whom 
be is frrqaently confounded. According to a 
local tndition mentioned by Polycrates of 
Epbe i us towards the end of the 2nd century 
(ia bos. H, E. iii. 31, t. 24^ the Apostle Philip 
bv beried with two rirgin daughters, who hnd 
KSL-bed a great age, at Hierapolis in Phrygia, 
while a third daughter who, it seems, had been 
■UTioi (cump. also Clem. Alex, btrom. iii. 6, 
p. b^'ut Putter), rested at Ephesus. The same 
tnditicHi i» mentioned by Papias (Eus. //. E, iii. 
^), and somewhat later by Proculus (Ens. H. E, 
CI. 31). In the Montanbt controversies these 
4aufhten of Philip are referred to as baring 
UvB prophetesses (Anon, in Enseb. ff, E. t. 17. 
■al Ftocnlos, as before). But in the canonical 
Ad* of the Apostles it is the Evangelid Philip 
vho has four dangfaters that prophesy (Acts zxi, 
tfl aa<l the suspicion is an obvious one, that it 
vas only the wish of the Church at Hierapolis 
U be able to fall back on Apostolic authority 
Ibst led them to confound the Apostle with the 
Inn^rlist. This snspiciea increasea in force 
vbsa we ehsenre that Proculus also speaks of 
liaae prophetic daaghters of Philip as four in 
umber. It u moreover so improbable that 
Wih Pkilina should have had prophetoHs daugh- 
ten. a»J that both should have been buried with 
Uam at UiarapoliB, thai the apparent discre- 
|aacy as to the number or the daughters between 
Ike wJtmmB of Polycrates and that of Proculus 
•a hardly be esteemed of any consequence, nor 
' * ' can the Airther difference that Polycrates 
thai ••• «f the daughters lies buried at 

Ephesus, Proculus that they all fonr were rest- 
ing at Hierapolis. The apparent greater exact- 
ness in one of these statements may be simply 
ascribed to legendary amplification. Tet so 
universally received was this false tradition at 
the close of the 2nd century, that the memory 
of the Evangelist and deacon was already com- 
pletely lost in or confounded with that of his 
Apostolic namesake. The Gnostic Ada PMlippi 
agree in this respect with the Catholic tradition. 
Accordmg to these Acts the Apostle Philip after 
making various circuits is crucified at Hierapolis 
(Ada PhUippi Tisch. p. 75 sqq., containing how- 
ever only the conclusion of the original work : 
fragments from its lost parts are preserved in 
Abdias lib. x., and the Ada PMiippi in HelUuk 
ap. Tischendorf, p. 95 sq., belong to one of its 
earlier sections). These same Acts represent the 
Apostle as suffering torture along with Bar- 
tholomew (one of the Seventy) and his sister 
Mariamne at Hierapolis, and Philip as actually 
dying there, while the other two are set free, 
Bartholomew being some time afterwards cruci- 
fied in Lycaonia. Another but quite isolated 
statement is that of pseudo-Hippolytus (Lagarde, 
p. 283X according to which St. Matthew is burnt 
to death at (not the Phrygian but the Syrian) 
Hierapolis. This is evidently a mere confused 
echo of the legend in the Gnostic Martyrium 

At least as well attested, in general estima- 
tion, as these accounts of St. John at Ephesus 
and of Si. Philip at Hierapolis, are the An- 
tiochene and Roman traditions concerning St. 
Peter. We have them in a double form, one 
Ebionite, the other Petro-Pauline. According 
to the former, which is most closely allied with 
the Simon-legend, Simon Peter, as Apostle of the 
true Prophet, meets his unhallowed namesake 
Simon Magus by the sea-side at Caesarea and 
follows him from thence through the maritime 
towns of Phoenicia and Syria as far as Antioch 
(so the Ciementine Homiiiea and Recognitions on 
the testimony of an earlier work) and aiVer 
wards to the great metropolis of Rome, in order 
to oppose and frustrate by word and miracle his 
deceptive arts and machinations (so the Ebionitic 
Ada of Petety which formed the groundwork 
both of the later Catholic and the Gnostic Ads of 
Peter and Paul), 

It is now universally acknowledged that under 
the false Simon of the pseudo-Clementine books 
we must recognise St. Paul, who even in the 
Ada Pdri (TiAchendorf, pp. 1-^9^ after a very 
careful revision by a Catholic editor, is still 
plainly discernible through his Simon-mask. 
For as the legendary fictions invented in the 
interest of Jewish-Christian schools laid claim to 
Ephesus and even Thessalonica and Corinth on 
behalf 01* St. John, they had yet stronger motives 
for aAsSgning the two remaining chief theatres of 
St. Paul's preaching, Syria with its metropolis 
Antioch, and Rome the final goal of all his labours 
in the West, to St. Peter as the genume Apostle 
of the Gentiles, and to represent him as tearing 
off the mask fVom his rival teacher in those two 
scenes of his most successful efforts and detect- 
ing in him the noroercr and lying prophet. 

In later times this Simon-legend, when ita 
true meaning was no longer understfiod, remained 
as a recognised possession of the Catholic Churchy 
and the same was the case with the no less widely- 



spread storj of St. Peter's doings at Antioch and 
Rome ; to which the Corinthian Bishop Dionysios 
(circ. A.D. 170) adds, on the authority no doubt of 
older witnesses, a story of St. Peter having also 
laboured at Corinth (Euseb. H, E, ii. 25). All 
these traditions had a common original in the 
Ebionitic legend, of which in these Catholic 
adaptations the anti-Pauline point was broken 
off, by the two Apostles being represented as 
peacefully teaching, journeying, and suffering 
martyrdom in each other's company. (Dionysius 
Corinth. L c, Irenaens Hner. ii. 3. 2 sq., Gains 
presb. Rom. in Euseb. H, E. ii. 25, Tertull. 
JPraescr, HaerH. 36, Origenes in Euseb. H, E. iii. 
1). And moreover in the Petro-Pauline recon- 
struction of the Acta Petri St. Paul is even per- 
mitted to take part in the conflict with Simon 
Magus himself (.Acta Petri et Pauii ap. Tis- 
chendorf). The Gnostic Acts are likewise sub- 
sequent to this conciliatory recasting of the 
original Peter-legend (Pseudo-Linus de Pcu- 
aione Petri et Pauii in B^l, Patr, Max, ii. p. 67 
sq.). The legend of the two-fold episcopate of 
St. Peter, first in Antioch and then in Rome, 
belongs also in its origin to the 2nd century, 
though not expressly asserted by earlier writers 
than those of the 4th century (for the Antiochene 
roiscopate, see Eusebius Chron, an. 2055 Abrah., 
Jz. E, iii. 36 ; for the Roman, Euseb. Chron. L c., 
H. E. iii. 4, and the Chronographer of the year 
354 ap. Mommsen Abhandlungen der kdnigL 
idchs. Geteliachc^ der Wisaenschc^ten Philol.- 
Mstor. Klaatey Iter band, Leipzig 1850, p. 634). It 
is to the latter half of the 2nd century that the 
data of the oldest catalogue of Roman bishops 
must be referred, which traces their succession 
back to the Prince of the Apostles. 

Notwithstanding its high antiquity however, 
this Roman legend concerning St. Peter must be 
regarded as a mere fiction invented to subserve 
certain powerful interests; while that other 
tradition, which points to the ** lands of the 
barbarians'* on the shores of the Euxine and to 
the Jewish communities which were settled 
there, is not only of equal authority but dis- 
tinctly preferable, as not being burdened with 
the like suspicions as to the motive which led to 
its invention. It can moreover lay claim to an 
equal antiquity of origin ; for though the Gnostic 
Ads of Peter and Andrew^ and the Acts of 
Andrew and Matthew so closely connected with 
them, cannot be referred to an earlier date than 
the 3rd century, it seems certain that the legend 
or tradition which forms their groundwork must 
have been of a much greater antiquity, and the 
inscription prefixed to the First Epistle of St. 
Peter distinctly seems to be in its favour. 

If then we would ascertain the earliest tra- 
ditions in respect to the countries in which the 
Apostles laboured or suffered martyrdom, it is 
just those very traditionary legends which can be 
shewn to have existed in the 2nd century and 
have been generally supposed to be the b^t at- 
tested (as indeed they have received the widest 
circulation), which we shall have to subject to 
the most searching criticism. Such must be 
especially the case with the received traditions 
concerning the Apostles John, Philip, and Peter. 
These we must either entirely set aside, or, as in 
the case of the Ephesian tradition concerning 
St. John, admit their claims with considerable 

But the like is also more or less the case wif 
other legends concerning the deaths of most • 
the Apostles. Tradition, since the close ot tl 
3rd century, has uniformly made them all ma, 
tyrs except St. John, though much divided as 1 
the manner of their deaths. In the case of U 
beloved disciple likewise, various legendary pa 
ticulars have been added to adorn the simple ta 
of his natural departure (comp. John xxi. % 
with the Acta Johannis in Tischend. p. 274 sq 
Abdias Hist. Apost, v. 23, pseudo-Mellitus < 
Passions Johannis ap. Fabric. Cod, Apocr. N, '. 
p. 621 sq., Augustin. Tractat. in Joann. 12 
Ephraim Theopolit. in Photius BU4. 226). Thei 
still remains however one perfectly trustwortli 
witness from the second half of the 2nd cei 
tury, according to which at any rate the thn 
Apostles, Matthew, Philip, and Thomas, aloB 
with Levi, who is generally identified with Ma 
thew and otherwise quite lost to tradition, a 
died a natural death (Heracleon in Clem. Ale 
Strom, iv. 9, p. 595 Potter). This witness d 
serves the more attention, inasmuch as it com* 
from a Gnostic source, i,e. fVt>m one of thoi 
circles in which afterwards sprang ^p the legen< 
of the martyrdom of St. Matthew by fire, tl 
crucifixion of St. Philip, and the impaling < 
St. Thomas (^Acta et Martyrium Matthaei, Aa 
Phitippi, Acta Thcfmae^ — all three in Tischei 
dorf ). The statement that Philip died a natun 
death is supported by the load tradition i 
Phrygia (see reff. above). If indeed the pers^j 
originally meant in that tradition was not tl 
Apostle but the deacon Philip, the legend of h 
martyrdom at Hierapolis presupposes the san 
confusion of the persons whom it is hardly pn 
bable that Heracleon knew how to distinguisl 
It follows then, that the Church, as early i 
A.D. 170, no longer knew anything of the fate < 
the actual Apostle Philip. Nor did the Edessei 
tradition know of the pretended martyrdom * 
St. Thomas any more than of the violent deat 
of Thaddaeus, whom, as we have already observei 
the Greek Acts likewise represent as having dii 
in peace. 

Of the history of Jacobus Alphaei nothing moi 
was known in very early times except so far as 1 
was identified with James the Just, who accon 
ing to a trustworthy account suffered a violei 
death in a tumultuous time (Joseph. Ant. xx. ' 
1 ; somewhat differently Hegesipp. in Euseb. H, J 
ii. 23, and after him Clem. Alex, in Euseb. H. 1 
ii. 1). Jude the brother of James (Judas Jacobi 
who in the lists of the Apostles is only mention! 
by St. Luke, is (as already observed) regarded i 
the older forms of the tradition as the same wil 
St. Thomas. 

If therefore we omit James the son of Zebede 
who according to the canonical Book of the Ac 
(xii. 2) was put to death by Herod, and lik 
wise St. Paul, there remain only Simon Pete 
Andrew, Bartholomew, and Simon the Cannnit 
of whose deaths by martyrdom there could ha^ 
been any tradition in the time of Heracleon. 

The crucifixion of St. Peter is unanimous 
reported as a fact both by Gnostics and Catholi 
from the last decade of the 2nd century onward 
and the knowledge of it appears to have bet 
derived from the old Ebionitic source (Grig. 
Euseb. H. E. iii. 1, Tertull. Praescr. Haer. 3 
Acta Petri et Pauii, pseudo-Linus, &c.), thous 
handed down to us only in connection with tl 



tmdition, which appears to find some 
■Bpport IB the jMU«age in the appendix to the 
Ckwpel of St. John (xxi. 18). The Epistle of 
CkoMBt of Rome to the Corinthians, written 
tt the end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd 
featury, contains at any rate nothing certain 
eoootming the martyrdom of the Apostle 
(c 5). As to the crucifixion of St. Andrew 
tad Si. Bartholomew, the tradition was current 
ia the same Gnostic circles as those in which St. 
Mstthew, St. Thomas, and St. Philip were re- 
Tered aa martyrs. In both cases the alleged 
lecalitiaa to which the martyrdoms are assigned, 
■last be taken into account — Patrae in Achaia for 
St Andrew, Lycaonia for St. Bartholomew ; for 
St Andrew nerer was in Greece at all, and the 
ndcBi metropolis of Armenia from very early 
tiflocs disfmted the possession of the bones of 
St Bartholomew with the Lycaonians. The Acts 
«f ^ Bartholomew (preserred in Latin in Abdias 
Hist, Apott. lib. riiL, in Greek ap. Tischend. p. 
243 sq.X according to which the Apostle was 
flsyed and beheaded, are certainly not older than 
the 3rd century. Not much later probably are 
the Acta of Simon and Jude, preserved to us 
enly by Abdias {ffist. Apod. lib. vii.X which r«- 
prsscat the two Apostles as perishing through a 
popular tumult in an idol temple at Suanir (or 
5«aais). Their author must at all erents hare 
had the history of Simon before him as an already 
existing tradition. This Simon is occasionally 
oonfouDdod with Simeon son of Clopas, bishop 
of Jerusalem, who was crucified in the reign of 
Trajan at the command of the proconsul Atticus 
(Hegesipp. in Euseb. ff. E. iii. 32 ; pseudo-Hip- 
poljTt., Lagarde p. 2S4 ; pseudo-Dorotheus in 
CVoM. Ptuch. ii. p. 138, ed. Bonn ; Scholion in 
Cmtt. Ap, Ligarde, p. 282). The same Apostle 
ia Tery late accounts is said to hare preached 
the Gospel in Gaza and Eleutheropolis, and 
theace onwards in Egypt, Africa, Mauritania, 
sad eren as fiir as Britain ; and at last to hare 
suficred death by crucifixion in Ostrakina in 
Ecrpt (psendo-Dorotheus 1. c, comp. pseudo- 
Htppolyt. 1. c, and Niceph. Call. H. E. ii. 40, 
vho transfers what is substantially the same ac- 
eoont to Jacobus Alphaei). 

As respects their origin the apocryphal Acts 
9i the Apostles may be divided into four differ- 
cat cUsses.— (1) Ebionitic, (2) Gnostic, (3) ori- 
giaallr Catholic, and (4) Catholic adHptations or 
rtceasiotts of what were originally Ebiouitic or 
Gooftttc documents. The far greater number of 
tlM texts preserred to us belong to the fourth 
eisAS. Only a few of the third cTaks, and those 
Ut the most part late works, are now accessible. 
Of the fir«t and second classes we have but re- 
Bksia« and fragments, yet some of those of con- 
aierable importance. Nay even the Catholic 
ataptations have generally come down to us only 
tt third or fourth hand. Few documents in 
th'ir present form carry us back beyond the 5th 
opbtary, though the nucleus of most of them is 
sf murh earlier date. The Gnostic Acts for the 
mfnx part date from the second half of the 3rd 
tratary at latest ; while the Ebionitic and soma 
Cstb'iic adaptations of them cannot be later than 
ti»« facood. And further, since Catholic writers 
vere very apt to borrow fVom Gnostic sources, 
sftJ converselv Gnostic writers from Catholio 
soarivs, it is often not easy to determine th« 
exact UtaFary relationship between them. 

I. EbUmite Ads of Apostles. Such apocry- 
phal Acts are mentioned as in use among Ebio- 
nite Christians by Epiphanius (ffaer, xxx. 16 
sq., 23). Among these the iya$a0fiol *laie^0ov 
were specially distinguished by their marked 
anti-Pauline tendency (Epiph. Ilaer, xxx. 16). 
Remains of this work have recently been sup- 
posed to exist in a very ancient fragment now 
incorporated in the Clementine Recognitions (i. 
22-74). Hilgenfeld however supposes this piece, 
which consists of polemical discussions between 
the Apostles and certain Jewish parties in the 
Temple at Jerusalem, to be rather a section of 
some old Feirine Praedicationes{icfipvyfia, or more 
correctly Kfi^iy/iara Utrpov) professing to be 
written by St. Peter himself. Our present 
sotirces of information (e. g. Cfemsntis Epist, ad 
Jacobum c. 20 in the Latin text, Clem, Becoffn, 
i. 17, Clem, Hoinil, i. 20) certainly show an 
acquaintance with these mip^fiara as a pseudo- 
Clementine writing. They were divided into ten 
books, the contents of which are preserved for 
us in Recogn, iii. 75, and were worked up in the 
composition of the three first books of the Re- 
cognitions. To them were added the old ircp/o8oi 
nlrpov 9iii KA^/Acrrof, of which we have two 
different recastings in the present Clementine 
Recognitions (^kyayymptfffiol KA^/ACKrof, in ten 
books, published by Gersdorf, Leipxig 1838), and 
the Clementine Homilies {rii lixufiivria) in twenty 
books (now at length published entire by Dressel, 
Goettingen 1853, and Lagarde, Leipzig 1865). 
These works contain addresses of St. Peter and 
disputations between him and Simon Magus, first 
in Caesarea and afterwards in other towns of 
Phoenicia and Syria, and have for their historical 
framework the family romance of Clement of 
Rome. To the same Petrine literature belonged 
the old Upi^us fldrpov iv 'P(6m7» which related 
the Apostle's conflict with the sorcerer at Rome, 
Simon Magus's mi^rable end, and St. Peter's 
crucifixion. All we now know of this work is 
derived from its later Catholic recasting in the 
TipJ^us Uirpov jcol TlavAov. But portions of 
it not contained in these Acts seem to have been 
made use of in the Martffrium Petri et Pauli^ 
called after Symeon Metnphrastes {Acta SS.ixxn, 
V. p. 411 sq.). Of Jewish -Christian origin were 
also the Histories of James the Elder (comp. Clem. 
Alex, in Euseb. H, E. ii. 9, and Abdias Hid. Ajjost, 
lib. \\.\ of James the lord's brother (comp. Hege- 
sipp. in Euseb. //. E. ii. 23), and of St. Matthew 
(in Clem. Alex. Paedaq. ii. 1, p. 175 Potter, comp. 
Epiph. Haer. xxx. 23). Among other Jewish- 
Christian histories of the Apostles arc probably 
to be reckonetl Acts of St. Andrew, which formed 
the groundwork of the Gnostic Acta Atulraie et 
Matthiiei^ Acts of St. Bartholomew the basis of 
the Nestorian M'trtyriutn liartholamatnj perhaps 
alr.o Acts of Peter and Paul, A;c. ; but of these 
very uncertain tnices are ail that remain to us. 

II. Catholic adapt' it ions of Ehionite Acts, 
Among all works of this cla&s, the foremost 
place must be as>igned to the Acta Petri et 
Pauli^ npd^sif Tlirpov koX HauAou, Greek and 
Latin (Thiio. Acta Petri et Pauli, Halle 1837, 
1838; the Greek text in Ti»ichend«»rf, I. c. pp. 
1-39; the Latin text of the pretenile<l Marrellus 
in Fabric, p. 6ii2 sq.), in their present form not 
older than the 5th century, but in their main 
constituents belonging to the close of the second. 
They treat in their fir&t section of St. Paui'a 



journey to Rome, in the second of his dealings 
with the Jewish-Christians there, and then of 
the aadience of both Apostles before Nero, the 
overthrow of Simon Magus by their combined 
action, and their martyrdom together. The 
conciliatory purpose of the work in its present 
form is as undeniable as the stem anti-Pauline 
character of the (Ebionite) original. Thesft 
Acts, as tipd^tis na^\ov, were already known 
to Origen (in Joann, t. xz. § 12). They- are 
reckoned by Eusebius (ff. E. iii. 3, comp. 25) 
among the Antilegomena ; and in the catalogues 
of books of the M. T. of the Codex Claromontanus 
^and of Anastasius Sinaita (Credner OescHchte 
de$ KanonSj 177, 241) among the Apocrypha of 
the New Testament. With these Acts was also 
probably connected the Petropaulioe ittipvyfui 
tl^Tpovy iVom which Clemens Alexandrinus haa 
preserved numerous extracts (see Hilgeofeld, 
Nov, Test, extra Canon, rec, iv. p. 52 sq.). This 
work is to be carefully distinguished from the 
Ebionite mipiyfiara. 

Lastly, there is the Mariyrium Bariholomaei^ a 
work in its present form of the 5th century (in 
Abd. Hist, Apost. lib. viii., and in the revised 
Greek text in Tischend. p. 242 sq.) and of Nes- 
torian origin, but based on a much older narrative, 
which itself was the adaptation to Christianity 
of a Jewish tale of conversion. The scene of the 
narrative is the kingdom of the Bosporus under 
Polemo II., with whose history the writer ex- 
hibits considerable acquaintance. 

III. Gnostic or Manichean Acts are frequently 
mentioned by the Fathers of the 4th century 
and onwards, as made use of by various Gnostic 
secU and by the Manichees (Euseb. H, E. iii. 
25; Epiph. Haer, xlvii. 1, Ixi. 1, Ixiii. 2 ; Phi- 
lastr. Haer, 88; Augustin. de Actis c, Felic, 
Manick, il. 6, c. Adimani. 17, c. Faust, xxii. 79, 
c. Advers. Leg, et Proph, i, 20, Tractat. in 
Joann. cxxiv ; Evodius Uzalensis de Fide c. 
Manich, c. 38 ; pseudo-Augustin. de f>era et falsa 
Poenit, c. 22; Turibius Asturicensis Epist, ad 
Idiiciwn et Leporiuniy in Fabric Cod. Apocr. li. 
p. 754 sq. ; Ephraim Theopolit. in Photius Bibl, 
229 ; pseudo-Hieron in Fabric. Cod, Apocr. i. p. 
8 sq.; Gelasii Decretum de Libr. recip. c. vi. ; 
Innocent, ep. Rom. ad Exuperium Epist. iii [vi] ; 
Photius Bihl. 114, 179; Timoth. presb. Con- 
stantin. in Fabr. i. p. 138 sq. ; pseudo-Athanas. 
Synops, Scr. Sacr. ; Kicephor. Stichom. ap. Cred- 
ner Oeschichte dea KanonSj p. 242 sq. ; pseudo- 
Mellitus, or Melito, de Passions Joannis in Fabr. 
iii. p. 604 ; pseudo-Melito de Transitu Marias 
ap. Tisch. Apocal, Apocr. p. 124 and fr.). As 
the author of this work, as well as the origina- 
tor of many Gnostic Gospels, is named a certain 
Lucius Carinus or Leucius Charinus (Aci^jctor 
Xapiyot\ who is spoken of as a Manichean. 
According to Photius, Bibl. 114, this work of 
Lucius Giarinus bore the title t&v &iro<rT<$A.wy 
TcpfoSoi, and contained the Acts of Peter, John, 
Andrew, Thomas, and Paul; in another place 
(//|V>/. 179) the Byzantine scholar mentions a 
collection in use by a Manichean named Agapiua, 
which bore the title irp<i^tis rwp SiMcjca &to- 
cr6km¥j and was perhaps identical with tht 
work attributed to Lucius Charinus. At any 
rate the apocryphal Acta above referred to are by 
fto ntieaos the only ones of Gnostic origin. This 
Lociua Charinus is simply the legendary repre- 
■tiitatlv* of the whole of tiiia extensive branch of \ 

literature, which certainly did not proceed hat 
a single author. The date of its origin mnat b 
carried back to the Srd century — for the moi 
part rather to the beginning than tht end- 
and in some cases even to the closing decades ( 
the 2nd century. The extensive use made ( 
these writings by the Manichees must not mil 
lead us to attribute their authorahip to membei 
of that sect. According to the testimony of Epi 
phaniua, they were largely in use among othc 
heretical parties, and much that still remain 
to us seems frequently to favour older sectaria 
opinions, although in our present texts the mot 
characteristic passages have been toned down o 
removed. Scarcely one of these Gnostic Ad 
of the Apostles has come down to ua wholly qb 
tampered with; while on the other hand eve 
in works, which have passed already seven 
times through the reforming hands of Catholi 
revisers, some of the old Gnostic features, dt 
spite all their efforts, are still distinctly traoi 
able. The great abundance of this literatur 
need not surprise us, any more than the ex 
tensive use made of it by the Catholics. Th 
original purpose with which these apocrypha 
writings were composed was that of diffusinj 
a knowledge of the doctrines and customs of th 
various Gnostic schools, and of setting up againa 
the Catholic tradition another whidi appealei 
with no less confidence to the authority o 
Apostles and their immediate disciplea. And ye 
it was hardly as a sort of rival or additional canoi 
that these writings were presented to the Chris 
tian public of those times. They aimed rathe: 
at supplying a popular kind of religious readin| 
in the shape of tracts set forth by the Gnosti* 
propaganda, which, professing to contain hia 
torical reminiscences from Apostolic times am 
composed in the credulous spirit of the age 
seemed to satisfy the demands of pious curiosit] 
and soon obtained an extensive circulation. Ca 
tholic bishops and teachers knew not ho« 
better to stem this flood of Gnostic writings aw 
their influence among the faithful, than b] 
boldly adopting the most popular narrations froD 
the heretical books, and, after carefully elimi 
nating the poison of false doctrine, replacin| 
them in this purified form in the hands of thi 
people. That this process of purification wai 
not always complete need not surprise us whei 
we consider how changeable or uncertain oi 
some points was the boundary-line betweei 
Gnostic and Catholic doctrines. In general how 
ever these Gnostic productions, apart from an] 
more or less marked assertion of heretical dog^nuu 
or rules of life, betray their real origin by thi 
overgrowths of a luxuriant imagination, by thai 
highly-coloured pictures, and by their paasionati 
love for mythical additions and adornments ii 
excess even of the popular belief in signs aiK 
wonders. The favourite critical canon — *' tin 
more romantic the more recent in origin " — doa 
not hold good as against this branch of liter* 
ture, in which exorcisings of demons, raisings o 
the dead, and other miracles of healing or o 
punishment, are multiplied endlessly. The in- 
oessant repetition of the like wonders bafl9es th< 
efforts of the most lively imagination to avoid i 
certain monotony, interrupted however by di» 
logues and prayers, which not seldom afford i 
pleasant relief, and are sometimes of a genuinel] 
poetical character. There is withal a rich app«r» 



!■ of the fapcmataiml, consUting of risioDs, ao- 

ftlie appMraaoM, Toioei from hearen, speaking 

■aimala, and demona, who with shame confess 

Uwir impotence against the champions of the 

trath ; WMarthlj streams of light descend, or 

■jstciieoa tigns appear, from heaven; earth- 

^vakesiy tbundera, and lightnings terrify the un- 

godlj ; tlM element* of wind, and fire, and water 

■imistcr to the righteous ; wild beasts, dogs, and 

serpcBta, liona, bears, and tigers, are tam^ by a 

angle word Ihnn the mouth of the Apostles, or 

tarn their rage against the persecutors; dying 

■artrrs are encompaMMl by wreaths of light or 

hcaTenly roses and lilies and enchanting odours, 

while the abym opens to devour their enemies. 

The devil himself b often introduced into these 

stories in the form of a black Ethiopian, and 

plays a oonsiderable pari. But the visionary 

tkmeni is the fiivourite one. Our Lord often 

sppean to His servanta, now as a beautiful 

yoath, and again as a seaman, or in the form of 

an Apoatle ; holy martyrs return to life to mani- 

fsst themselves, at one time to their disciples, at 

■BbChcr to th«ur persecutors. Dreams and vi- 

MOM anaoimoe beforehand to Apostles their ap- 

preechang martyrdom, or to longing souls among 

the heathen the fulfilment of their desires. All 

this phaataatic scenery has been left, for the 

WKt p*rt» nntouched by Catholic revisers, 

sad remaina therefore in works which in 

•tkcr respecta have been moKt thoroughly re- 

cut. Yet was it only in very rare cases that 

these romantic creations of fancy were them- 

arires the original object in view with the 

irriters who produced them. That object was 

tither some dogmatic interest, or, where such 

rrtired into the background, an ascetic purpose. 

Ussy of these narratives were simply invented 

to tztol the meritoriousness of the celibate life, 

or to eommeod the severest abstinence in the 

ettste of matrimony. On this point Catholic 

rnitm have throughout been careful to make 

Rfolar systematic alterations, now degrading 

l^fitimate wives to the position of concubines, 

lai now introducing objections connected with 

inreeas of kin or other circumstances which 

Bicht justify the refusal or the repudiation of a 

{ir«a marriage. But where merely the praise of 

Tirgiaity was concerned, the views of Catholics 

i»l Gnostics were nearly identical, except that 

tW former refused to regard the maintenance of 

tiut estate as an absolute or universal moral 


IhAnvt recensions of the same texts, or here 
■»i there isolated fragments preserved in quota- 
tfTus by the Fathers, enable us to make some 
n*tnictivc ooraparisons, and afford a clue, by 
iM bdp vf which we may follow out the method 
vncteopoa later editions and recensions were 
ervstroctod. Where texts differ, the shorter 
me is almost invariably the more recent. Nar- 
ntjvcs, which appeared on any grounds objec- 
tionable, were commonly abridged, and that often 
ia a way which rendered them simply unintel- 

The Gnostic Acta, of which we still have 
■MM certain knowled^ are the following : — 

(i) Acta Pitbi (wpd^ir or wtpioBoi n4rpw\ 
^Bbaf perhsp* from the end of the 2nd cen- 
tvv,a Onoitk recasting of Catholic Acts, attri- 
m4 ta tha anthorship of Linns the disciple of 
Aytli Ikt coaelaaioa of this work is still 

preserved in a superficial Catholic redaction of 
the 5th or 6th century, which also bears the 
name of Linus and is entitled Passio Petri, (A 
Latin translation will be found in the Bihl. Pair, 
Max. ii. p. 67 sq. ; the Greek text is still only 
in MS.) It must not be confounded with an- 
other book bearing the same title, the compo- 
sition of pseudo-Abdias {Ada SS, Jun., v. p. 424, 
sqq.). The Gnostic prayers attributed to St. 
Peter, which are left nearly in their original 
form, are important for the knowledge of 
Gnostic doctrines. Further remains of this work 
are preserved in a more or less altered shape 
in pseudo-Hegesippus (de Excid. Hierosol, iii. 
2\ in the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus {Acta SS. 
May iii. p. 7 sq.), in various citations made by 
Fathers, in some additions in the present text of 
the Catholic Acts, and in another Catholic edi- 
tion of the Acts of Peter, which was used by 
Johannes Malala, Anastasius Sinaita, Nicephorus 
Callisti, and Cedrenus. 

(ii) Acta Pauu. These likewise pretend to 
be written by Linus: their concluding section, 
which treated of the Apostle's martyrdom, has 
been put into fresh shape in the Passio Pattli^ 
and attached to the Passio Petri mentioned 
above (the Greek text is contained in the same 
MS., the Latin in Bibi, Pair. Max. ii. p. 70 
sq.). Another portion of these Acta Pauii, 
containing the history of the veil of Perpetua or 
Plautilla, has found its way, in a somewhat dif- 
ferent recension, into some MSS of the Catholic 
Acta Petri et Pauii. These Acts formed origin- 
ally, along with the Acta Petri^ a far more com- 
prehensive and important whole. The legend 
contained in this work, and the persons therein 
named, meet us again and again in subsequent 
ecclesiastical traditions. 

(iii) Acta Johannis. Remains of these have 
been collected by Thilo (Fnigitienta Actuum S. 
Johannis a Lcudo Charino conscrij4oruni, Halle 
1847). An extract from these Act*, made by 
Catholic hands, yet retaining numerous traces of 
the Gnostic original, and eiiibmcing only a very 
small part of the entire work, has been edited by 
Tischendorf from two MSS (Acta Apost. Apoc, 
p. 266 sq.). A much more thorough Catholic 
recasting of these Acts, based on an old Latin 
version, is found in pseudo-Abdias {Hist. Apost. 
lib. v). From the same source as this last is 
derivwl peeudo-Prochorus, de Vita Miraculis et 
Assumptione S. JohanniSj a Latin rifacimento of 
what in the Greek text exists only in MS (oomp. 
Thilo, Acta Thomae p. Ixxvii. sq.X the irtplo^oi 
*\oidv¥ov avyypa/^uffvu iraph Tlpox^pov {Hibt. 
Pair. Max. ii. p. 46 sq.), and pseudo-Mellitus 
(Melito), de Passions S. Johannis (in Fabric. 1. c. 
iii. p. 604 sq.). Of these three texts that in 
Abdias comes the nearest to the original work (in 
its Latin dress). Pseudo-Mellitus, who from 
chap. 14 onwards presents quite the same text as 
pseudo-Abdias, has greatly abridged the earlier 
portions (cc. 4-13), and the conclusion (cc. 22, 
23X which in Abdias still contain much Gnostic 
matter. Pseudo-Prochorus has likewise still 
some literal points of agreement with AlMlias 
(compare cc. 8-1 1 of the Latin text of Prochorus 
with Abdias v. 2), but the great part of his 
narrative is occupied with accounts of St. John 
on the isle of Patmos, which are omittei by the 
others. A comparison of the concluding words 
in the Latin Prochorus with the commencement 



of the uarrative in Mellitas shews that both 
pieces originally constituted one whole. This, in 
the one work, is attributed to the authorship of 
Vrochorus, one of the seven deacons and pre- 
anmed companion of St. John; while for the 
other, the Catholic redaction, Melito of Sardis is 
made to lend his name. 

(ir) Acta Andbeae. These, like the fore- 
mentioned Gnostic Acts, are often referred to by 
the Fathers, and were circulated among the 
Gnostics themselves in various editions. The 
oldest portions of them consist of the * Acts of 
Andrew and Matthew among the Anthropophagi ' 
(ilcia Andreae el Matthaei^ not Matthiae as is 
read in some MSS), and the closely allied work, 
the ' Acts of Peter and Andrew in the Land of 
the Barbarians' {Acta Petri et Andreae). Of 
these two the foi*mer is preserved to us in a 
Catholic recension, which is imperfect towards 
the end, the latter only in fragments, but both in 
Greek (Thilo, Acta SS. Apost. Andreae et MattMae, 
Halle 1847 ; the same in Tischendorf, Acta Apod, 
Apocr. p. 132 sq. ; and Acta Petri et Andreae 
in Tisch. Apocal. AfA)cr. p. 161 sq.). The 
foundation of these Acts consisted in a legend 
known in Jewish-Christian circles, and probably 
already committed to writing. Based upon 
them is the Anglo-Saxon poem Andreas and 
Elene, edited by Jacob Grimm, Kassel 1840. A 
misunderstanding as to the land in which the 
Apostle is here said to have suffered martyrdom 
gave occasion for the prietended Epistle of the 
Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia concerning the 
Passion of Andrew^ which has come down to us 
in a Catholic recension, much abridged towards 
the beginning, and in both the Greek and Latin 
texts (Greek in Woog Presbyt. et Diacon, Achaiae 
de Martyrio S. Andreae Epistola EncyclicOy 
Leipitic 1747, and Tischendorf Act. Apost. Apocr. 
p. 105 sq. ; Latin in Surius on 30 Nov. and 
elsewhere, and in a partially more complete 
excerpt in pseudo-Abdias Hist. Apost. iii. 35 
sq. Fragments of the original text are found 
in Evodius de Fide c. Manich, c 38, and in 
[>seudo-Augustin. de Vera et Falsa Poenit. c. 22.). 
in order to combine and reconcile these two 
pieces another fiction was devised, the ir«p(o8ot 
*Kvhpiou^ containing the narrative of St. Andrew's 
Journey from Pontus to Greece ; this is referred 
to by Philastrius {ffaer. 88) as a Gnostic inven- 
tion, in contradistinction to other Gnostic Acta 
Andre te (the Martyrium). Pseudo-Abdias has 
preserved some excerpts of it {Hist. Apost. iii. 
cc. 3-34). We have a Catholic rifacimento of 
the Acts of St. Andrew (both the Acta Andreae 
ct Maithaei and the Martyriiun) in the Vita 
Andreae of the Monk Epiphanius (Epiphanii edita 
et ineJUa^ cura A. Dressel, 1848). 

(v) Acta et Martvrium Matthaei, a con- 
tinuation of the former Acta Andreae et Mat' 
thiiei^ describing the completion of the work 
commenced by St. Andrew among the Anthro- 
pophagi by his fellow Apostle St. Matthew, and 
the death of the latter by a fire martyrdom. 
The Greek text, which is still preserved (Tisch- 
endorf, Acta Apost. Apocr, p. 167 sq.), has 
been only slightly revised. The old Gnostic 
element is still very apparent, especially in the 
prayers. A Catholic excerpt is given by Nice- 
phorus //. E. ii. 41. 

(vi) Acta Thosi ae, one of the most famous 
among the Gnostic Apostolical histories. The 

former half is preserved almoft entirely in itf 
original form (Greek text in Thilo Acta Thomat^ 
Leipsic 1823, and Tischendorf Act, Apost, Apocr, 
p. 190 sq.). The Gnostic speeches and prayen 
which it contains, and which have hardly been 
tampered with by Catholic hands, have been 
submitted by Thilo to a learned and acute ex- 
amination, who comes to the conclusion that 
they exhibit traces of alterations under Mani- 
chean influences — a point which perhaps admiti 
of dispute. Of the latter half we have the con- 
clusion conuuning the Martyrium in a short 
Greek extract {Consummatio Thomas in Tischen- 
dorf I. c. p. 235 sq.). An abstract embracing 
the whole work is found in Abdias {Hist. Apod 
lib. ix), which for the mid-portions of the worl 
(cc. 8-16 in Abdias) is still our only authority, 
(vii) Acta Philippi. Of these, which sx\ 
seldom mentioned by the Fathers, only frag- 
ments have come down to us. The Martyritm 
of Philip {Acta Philippi in Tisch. Act. Apost 
Apocr. p. 75 sq., Apoc, Apocr. pT 141 sq.), fona 
according to a note in the MS only a part o 
the original work **fh>m the 15th Act to tin 
end." Of the Greek text we possess varion 
recensions which have been more or less sub 
jected to revision. Abstracts made from then 
by Anastasius Sinaita and in various Gred 
Menologies have been collected by Tischendoi 
{Act. Apost. Apocr, proleg. p. xxxi. sq.). Th 
Vatican MS (mentioned in the Acta SS. May, ! 
p. 8 sq., but which has remained unedited 
appears to contain further remains fVom thi 
part of the work which immediately precede 
the 15th Act. Besides this we have yet anoth< 
fragment entitled Acta Philippi in Helht 
(Greek text in Tisch. Act, Apost. Apocr. ] 
95 sq.), which relates the Apostle's conflid 
with Greek philosophers and with the Hig 
Priest of the Jews who had himself come \ 
Greece for the purpose and suffers a miracuioi 
punishment for his obstinate unbelief. Tl 
stories of miracles in the Greek Menaea seem \ 
have been derived from these Gnostic Act 
These are adopted in part for the feast of tl 
Apostle on 1 May in the Acta Sanctorum^ ai 
the rest reserved for the 6 June, the festiv 
of the deacon Philip. In the Martyriitm edit 
by Tischendorf we find, besides St. Philip, i 
Apostles John and Bartholomew and Mariam: 
sister of the latter, appearing on the scene. T 
statements in reference to Bartholomew (pp. 8 
91, 94) appear to point to the 

(viii) Acta Bartholomaei, the scene 
which lay in^ Lycaonia. These Acts probal 
stood in a similar relation to thoee of Philip, 
the Acta Matthaei to those of St. Andrew. I 
hitherto no trace of them has been discover 
except it be in a fragment published by Stej 
Praetorius (Fabric. Cod. A/iOcr, ii. p. 685 sq., 
p. 931 sq.), and attributed to the authorship 
Crato, a disciple of Apostles. 

(ix) Acta Pauli et Thbclae; written accoi 
ing to the testimony of Tertullian by a pr 
byter in Asia " out of love to Paul." 1 
author, who must have lived in the 2nd o 
tury, was deposed from his ecclesiastical n 
on account of this writing (Tert. de Bapt. 
** sciant in Asia presbyterum qui eam sci 
turam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de 
cumulans, convictum, atque confessum id 
amore Pauli fecisse looo deoessisse"). TertuU 



MBtkma, as specuJ Blatter of offence, the right* 
pttu to women to preach and baptise after the 
example of Thecla. fiat etill more objectionable 
perhi^ waa the Gnostic character of these 
Acta, which is diaoemible even in the present 
text, althoiigh the greater part of what was 
•ptiused to Catholic faith or practice, such as 
the fable of the baptised lion (still found by 
Jerome, Vir. IB, c 7), has been carefully re- 
■oTed. Of other doubtful stories, such as the 
appearance of our Lord in the form of St. Paul, 
ss Thecla throws herself into the pool for the 
purpoce of baptism, there remains now only a 
brief indication. But throughout the work its 
Gnn*tic origin betrays itself in the implied 
rejection of marriage, and in the commenda- 
tion of total abstinence from all sensual indul- 
mces by the example of St. Paul and Thecla. 
The groundwork of the fiction appears to hare 
hten a local legend, and the Queen Tryphaena, 
vho b also a relation of the Emperor, was, as 
Gntschmid's investigations have established, a 
historical person, who seems really to have Uved 
St the time when St. Paul travelled through 
PUidia and Lycaonia (Gutschmid, /. c. p. 177 sq.). 
Natwithstanding the author's deposition from 
kb ministry, the history of Thecla was uni- 
venally welcomed in Catholic circles, frequently 
n-editcd and often used as a subject of homi- 
letic discourse. (Corop. the passages collected 
is the Acta Sanctorum for September, vi. p. 546 
■q^ in Grabe Spic. Pair. i. p. 87 sq., and in 
Tlscheadorf Act. Apod. Apocr. proleg. p. xxi. 
•q|.) Founded npon it are the writing of fiasil 
9( Seleucia de \ ita et Miraculis S, TheclaCj (ed. 
injetanus, Antwerp 1608), and the Acta Fauii 
<t TKgrlae of Simeon Metaphrastes (in Tilotanus, 
L c p. *J50 sq.). The Greek texts which have 
ei<iDe down to us give the impression (even in 
tik^ case of the longer recension) of a frequently 
sbrupt excerpt (in Tischendorf, 1. c p. 40 sq.). 

(X) Acta Barnabae; first published by Pape- 
brr<-h (A'-ta SS. Jun., ii. p. 431 sq.) from a 
Vatican MS, and afterwards by Tischendorf 
(A.i'i Afott. Afocr. p. 64 sqq.), who makes use 
m s^ldition of a Paris if S. The text of these Acts 
b <^frrek. They prof»s to be written by John 
Mark, and treat of the journeyings together of 
t&e two Apostles Paul and Barnabas, their strife 
enncemiD^ Mark and consequent separation, Bar* 
aabcu' missionary work in Cyprus, his roartyr- 
d>>in there, an<l the subsequent removal of his 
e rapittion, Mark, to Alexandria. The present 
t«st. a few expreuions only (near the commence> 
nrnt) exrepteti, contains no indications of a 
<tai#»tic ori<^in, but is evidently nothing but an 
eion^it from a larger work. The original Acts 
<-*ni-i hapJly have been older than the second 
r.Uf of the 3rd century, and the present text 
BB'j.t have been written before the vear 478, 
»*»n the b'ines of Barnabas are said to have 
'*^n diMr^vered (Ce«lrenu» Ilisl. Compend. p. 
*'\* sq. ed. Bonn); for according to these Acts 
•St. BHmaljas was burned, and nothing remained 
•f his body but ashes. The Lnunlitio S. Bar-- 
ai^tf, ascribe*! to a Cypriote monk named Alex- 
■aier {Ata SS. Jun. ii. p. 436 sq.X is a very late 
lad worth lens compilation made in the interest 
sf the Milanese Church. 

IV. r,itf*olic rrtmttructvma of Gnngtic A^s 
^v» been frM|uently discussed already. We 
Bay here add to those mentioned above the 

" Apostolical Histories" of the preUnded Abdias 
[Abdias] (ffistoria Certaminia ApodoHciy Fabri 
cius Cod. Apocr, N, T. II. p. 402 sq.), of which 
certain parts have been frequently circulated as 
distinct works and under different names. Th« 
whole work, written in Latin in the second half 
of the 6th century, is a compilation from very 
various sources. Gieat use is made of Gnostic 
Acts, not in their original form, but in Latin 
translations of Catholic revisions. Such is spe- 
cially the case with the histories of Peter, Paul, 
Andrew, John, Thomas, and perhaps also with 
that of Philip. We may also refer here to the 
biographies of the Apostles attributed to Simeon 
Metaphrastes (about the 10th cent.). Though 
they were written in Greek, the existing printed 
texts are for the most part Latin translations, 
e.g. in the Legendariwn of Mombritius (1474), 
the Vitae Sanctorum of Lipomannus (1551 sq.), 
in Surius (1569 sq.), and (partially) in the Acta 
Sanctorum of the Bollandists. These biographies 
go back in many instances to Gnostic sources, 
and Gnostic Acts were at any rate mediately 
used by the Church historian Nicephorus Cal- 
listi (/f. E, ii. 36 sq.) and the Byzantine chro- 

V. Acts oriffinally Catholic. Of these very 
few remain. Besides the already mentioned Acta 
Barihohmaei^ which are of Nestorian origin, and 
are probably based on an older Jewish-Christian 
woric, we may name the following : — 

(i) DocTRiNA Addaei; in Syriac, published 
by Lagarde (BeUquiae Juris Eccles. Antiquiss.\ and 
Cureton (ilno. Syr. Documents^ London 1864, with 
an English translation, p. 6). This work treats 
of the legend of Abgarus, and the missionary 
labours of Thaddaeus (Addaeus) and his disciple 
Aggaeus in Edessa, and must be carefully distin- 
guished from the Doctrina Apostolorum^ which 
in one MS. is bound up with it. It was written 
towards the end of the 3rd or in the beginning 
of the 4th century, but its groundwork must be 
much older, and it is not without importance for 
the history of the Canon of the New Testament. 
Much less original, and yet written before the 
middle of the 4th century, are the Greek Acta 
Thaddaei (in Tischendorf, 1. c. p. 261 sq.), which 
already show acquaintance with the legend of 
the miraculous impression of the Lord's coun- 
tenance on the handkerchief — a celebrated relique 
formerly in possession of the Edessenes. [Augar.] 
(On a method of fixing the terminus ad quern for 
the composition of these Acts by means of the 
interpolated glosses which they contain, compare 
Gutschmid, 1 c. p. 171.) A late redaction of the 
same legend is found in Simeon Metaphrastes 
(Latin in Lipomann. Sanctor. Hist. i. 189; Greek 
in Combefis. Orij. C'lnstuntinop. Manip. Paris 
16f>4, p. 75 sq.). The account given in Moses 
of Chorene was drawn from an Armenian version 
of these Acts, which has been lately redis- 

(ii) Acta Simonis et Judae. These Acts, 
profeisodly composeii by one Crato, a disciple of 
the Apostles, are given in excerpt by pseudo- 
Abdias (vi. 7 sq.) The two Apostles are there 
represeuted as opposing Manichean doctrines in 
the person of two magicians, Zaro^s and Arfaxat. 
The historical framework of the Acts is de- 
rived from the actual historv of the Parthian 
empire about the middle of the 1st century after 
Christ. This appears to indicate a high antiquity 


in the oripoil Itgand, ud p«r)upi th« *(iat«iic« 
ofu older Jiwiii-ChHitlu work containiog it, 
which pouibljr hxl pUMd through Gnoitic hundi 
before being miLde the beui of the prtiMtt text. 
The Isttet coDJectim u laggHled hj the 
romutic character of Kme of the detnili, 
the mtmcle of the ipaiking infut, the tuned 

FiuUiF, the liteat imoDg ell t) 
Acle of Apoetlei are the 
(iii > Ac» Uatthaei in Abdiu (ffiit. Apo4l. 



hiopia. the CO 


a vhich their 



with Chrie- 


lier thu the time 


. H. , 

. i. 9> Th 

ir hie 

orial frame- 


r ii thet Qf 

lei* period; while, 

u we 

en, in the o 

her leg-rndarj- 



woDt to be 

earlier date. 

Here it 


to the time 


Elubaa., who 

L the 

r 52* I 

I the 

r king!. Aeglippi 
(Aglebil, AglebM) aod Bear (BnwartB) are bor- 
nwed fram a mncb older Atthiopiaa dynaitf 
(GutKhmid, I. c p. 386 aqq.). Theie AcU, ai 
thej appear in the work of Abdiai, ar* coDoected 
in a certain «>j with th* Acta of Simon and 
Jnde before mentioned, a connectioa which nuf 
be due to their author hinuelf. [B. A. L.] . 

ACUANITAB. [Acuaa.] 

ACUA8 ('Aisi^O. ■>> url)' teacher of Uaoi- ' 
eheitoi, who ii uid to bare cone fh>in Mewpo- 

theropolii. The Uanlcheau wen wmetimei 

phaBiiu<.Jd». /ffflTr.liTi. DcallshimaTeterauua, 
and places the rise of bia Mlowen io the fourth 
Tear of the relsn of lb* emptror Anretian 
(*.D. 2731. [E. B. C] 



ADALABIUS (Athalariua, Adelheriua, Adel- 
hcnii), a prieit who acoompaoied St. Boniface in 
hlseipedili ■ " ■ ■ ■ 


feet life of him la giren in llaUUoB, Act. 8><ud 
iii. S86. [G. P. M.] 

ADALBERT. 8. (1) (Tent, "nobly bright," 
Engl, fnrina Ethelbert, Albert), a deacon, conx 
memorated Jnne 25. The B<ilUadi>ti gire hia 
acta written by the monki if Egmond ami Met- 
toch. According to thcM h« wai a dieciple of 
St. Egbert, ud waa bj him aent into Gennany 
withSt. Willebrordand teDOthera,A.[>. 690. B* 
accompanied Si. Willebmrd when the latter waa 
KOt bjr Pepin of Heriilal into Fritia, and then 
died. Hia body wu preaerred at Egmond, and 

bi> honoor bv Tbeodoric II. For a diaciudon 
a( the atatement of Marcellinni that he waa eon 
of 8t Oiwald, king of Dein, aee Le Culote, IT. 
392-3SI. According U, htm he wai pnaent at 
the Sjnod of [Ttrecht in 702, and died In 705. 
Baillet (Juin. p. 310), conalden the Acta rerr 

.rrupl. (Ael. SS. Boil. Jnn. v. 84-110; lU- 

lloD. Act. SS. Btn.. I. 631-IJ4fl.) 

<S) CoUDl of rOitretut, commemonted on 
April 22. He married Regina, niece of Kin; 
" ' , with whom he dedicated hioiaelf to a Vil* 


Houriihel abni 
Act. SS. Boll. April 

(i) A aoldier, fhther of Weriobert, ■ tnonk of 
Si, Gall. Thii Warinbert lupplied material* 
for the lir>l part of hii work, lo (he anonTmona 
monk of St. Gall, who, lale in the 9th century, 
wrote on the pcraonal histor; of Charlea. At 
Werinbert't death the author takea np the nai^ 
ntht from hli youthful r*collectlona of Adal- 

Huo.n, nod Saionii, and SclaTei, when he eerred 
before tWO under Keroldui, Invtbrr of Qnetn 
leicribefi Adalbert aa a aecnlai 
led in lltentore, and coDfeasi 

7b*, I 

.rated < 

e brcuiary of Erfurt h* ii 
n April- 

Ei>acopta »l ifurlyr. The title of biihap aeenis 
to be a baf^ieu auumption, but it probably gave 
riae lo Baillet'a utatement, which retli apparently 
on no historical fuundallon, tbat AJelard waa the 
Gnt and only biihup of Erfurt, tbe tee after hie 
doath being united to that of Maina. See Hcn- 

1,491. Baillet, Vieidei Saints, u.^aD. 5S, nod \v. 
I<ubi Topog. 93. See al» ADaLHARD. [C. D.] 

ADALBERT, a prince of tbt royal nice of 
Korthorobria, who devoted himnelf about the 

land. Selecting the neighbourhood of Egmond 
■a tht acene of hta laboura, h< ' 

mi-El Ting, and inwd worka. 


a of th. chnrch o 


nded the monaat 

ery .1 that 


t the high 


to bare had ten 



their death i< no 


ut the middle of 

the 8tfa cenlaty. 

that hi 


t pupil. 

• tolcM 

with u 

the work of ii 

the faith among the heathen Friiiana, and a 
hll dMth waa Tang held in Teueration by tl 
hnbitanU aa their apiritul bther. An ii 

meaai uf preMrving lo ni aome inlercaling par- 
ticulari about Chariei'i eipeditiona, whatei-et 
mny be their historical yalue. Mim^rntflUt> 
Una, in Rib. Sn. Germ. ir. Ii66, 667. [C. D.] 

ADALOI6ILUS, al«> written Adelgisna 
" Dui Palalii ;" appointed In 633 gnardian « 
SigebeH, King of Au>tra»ia in hii childhood 
AeC. SS. Btlg. ii. 354, 36T, and Ghe«t«l'r'* oota 
p. 368. [C. D.] 

ADAIXilBUS (Tent. = noble pledge), (i; 
i. q. St. Grima, abbat of Tholey, q. v. 

(2) or ALDciuL-g (Baeda lib. t. c 19), i 
king of Friaia in 678, when St Wilfrid toacfaei 
those ahorea on his way to Rome, Thangl 
It is not stated (hat he waa himself bapliied 
he gare 5l. Wilfrid crery ftcilitj for convert 
ing his people, and indignantly refnued Ehroln' 
olTer of a pock of gold coin in return for tb 
aaiot or hia head. Tearing the letter Into fta| 

back the answer, "So may the Uaker of tb 
world utterly cut off hia reign and lift, wh 
I breaks plighted faith with a fJ-iend," It ii though 
I that Adalgisua gave Dagobert of Auatrula pa 
I misaiun to build a monastery In hia territor] 
lUihill. Am. L 540; ifotoita &icni,ii,25. Kl 

■kU ii kDovn tnd cooJMtiind Airthar od th* [ < 
atUrj nt Oia kiaf—Oitn written AMe^lIiu— 
aa^Kvuv and Teied period, h« Urbo LmmLiu, 
itr. Friticar. Nil. pp. 48-50. 

(S) or AoEunuci, loii of I>Hid>riiu the lu-t 
king of LomljKrdj Mid hk wiTe Auk, jutoclated 
with ha btli*r Id tii* (STfrnnietit loon after hii 

ii 759, tlM uauaUn of BnKia for hi> tiitar 
Anlbuxa. QiiU, tt* dinghtcr of Pepia ud 
Btrtnda, wu dotlud for him. but th< nmrriigt 
dd aot Uk* pUc*^ Tlut it wu snttrtuiwd ii a 
pnoT to MabjUoD that Giala wai Dot yti tied bj 
■KDaitic Tom. Ha itroug oppoutioD of Stit- 
pfan 17. to h«r hrothor*! Loiubirdtc ■natrimoDiiil 
lUiaaa (GibboD, tL 155, ad. Hilmaa) wu per- 
k*|» nScient to nuke f Did th* propcnal J thoDgh, 
M HabUL MM iufri aftir EgiDhird, At ths 
dooBt of Chailea iDto Italj in 773, »h«n 
I^idnioa wai being blookwlad in Pi 

. iDd 

if* and lODi of CarloDUUL Tbey 
tiadtf nceired bf Chiirl«i, bat from that time 
hiilunr ii •iltat kbont Adalgiiu. Uibill. Ann. 
ii. KS. [C D.1 

(1) ADELOni::*, Dskf MOt bf Chirlu in 7S3 
■pint th* Vaodalt, and trearherouilf cDt oS" by 
■Bi rttwUioiH SaioiB. Knntiii Scr. Oemuxn. 
Script. U. 38. [C. D.] 

ADALOUDIS, CD-loaiider with h*r hmbud 
ia 697 of k DonnerT at LimDan dio. 
II dlo. Bout^o Ii Le^ 

Fuit (if U 

GalL Chr. Til. 421). S« th 
with btr rabteription in U>bill. A 
. plaalum of Cbildebert til. in 7 

Uilfiidii, then a widoT, we 
IW cUinu «f on* Aigath*a«, 
Ot. TiL liuli. p. 4. 



[C. D.] 

■bh>t of Corbi* 
f com 

jf bit lif« 
bn ju tloM. hi* pnmiDiDC* during the l.iit 2i 

(nphf fhoald b* iscluded in the praent ir<irki. 

Tb« ori^iBi) mitcriitl* avallnblr tor our iofor- 
nnioa ire— 1. A life written by Puichuiut 
Eilbert. bb dixiple, in a flawing (t^le. ud orer- 
luj with rhdarioil nnb«lli>hin*DU. 3. There 
k I nan neeinct octoDDt by Gerard, monk and 
wiluvr of Corbi* in the lltb cenlury, allerwards 
>IUI of La SeiDTt, In Goienae, compreued 
tv tlia diffoK life br Piechaiiu^ with th* 
Uj«t Df pr*entiDg AdAlhsrd'i set* in >u hi>tr>- 
iKil feim. 3. Gtrard'i book on the pnthumoDi 
B.ndA of S. Adalbaid, with a conlinDntion bj 

•tan ■• iBdoil^d in the ' Tnmhlio S. Vili' in 
iiA'i BA. H*r. Cnwm I. pp. T-11. 

Alaliurd had all tba Balnral admntngee of 
Mbl. birtb a»l high abiiitieh Hi> father wu 
I'lui bcnard. Ma ofCturla Murtel. He wna 
tk«i fWB*ia-g*rman to Charlci the Emperor. Ha 
*a Um la Artoii, perhaps at ■ rlllige called 
Biiaa (Hiutla>, near AflJeurda Brought np 
athiCbarta of i'epio. CurloniiD, and Charlei, 
k> »[ht ha** abM* aa a roartier. but h* becnina 
JbpjJd at th* pnTalcat Tisea, acd made 


ModU CauiDD. Theoce ha wai loon recalled bj 
the importanit; of Charln, and hit iDhMqDent 
attempt to lead areclnie'i tiieat Corbie wu fnu- 
trated bj the abbot Nordnun eompelliDg him to 

dutj of instructicig and din 

In t 

ctiDg th* r 
■ dntiei be 

iDtlf inccearDl. Hii eloqueni 
procured him the nam* of Aorelim Aogmitinna, 
while Alcuin addreaaei him u Antouioi <Alc 
Ef^ cTii,). It ii uauertain at what dKle pre- 
ciHlj he became abbat ufCorble. He wai allowed 
to renain there, qnietly performlog hii dntia 
till 793, when Charlei obliged him to mingle in 
itata affaira, and tent him into Italy u chief 
niDiiter to hii ion Pepin. In thii capacity ha 
voD high &me (br practical wiiidom lod striet 
integrity. Pop* Leo 111. treated bim with ao 
intimicy, layi Gerard, inch u had been extended 
Id no Frank before by the popei. It ii not im- 
probable, couiderjng hit reUtioiuhlp to Charlea, 
that Adalbard hod loma hand in arranging tba 
coronation in St. Peler'i baiilica on Chriilmu 
day, 800. Id 809 he wu Hnt by Charles ta 
■" hope. Thi 


ct of thii jour 

ey wai to obtain th 


ent to Ihedecibiou of a council which Charlea 


•ummoned at 

Aachen in the ipring 

of the 

year on the 

Dhject of the P™« 

loD of 


Holy Ghoil (8 



he curiou, dl. 

ogue held between I 



the Misii, in 

Uanii Conci'I. liv. 

8. At 


n'l death in SIO, Ad^lhard acted a> enaf 

to hi. u>n be 

nard, then a boy of 12 yean. 

a proof thil t 

i> poulioa at author 


uteful to him. 


Id 814 fie retnraeJ 

to Corbie. He wu 


e Council of Koyon. 



-e followed imn 

ediately atlerwarda. 



attributed to 

It ia 

ed (Robertwn, 

.2^1). that with hi> 



a he had tried 

indDce Chariei to a 

Beraart u hia luc 

ceuor in the place o 


en lay that t 

ey look part Id the 


piracy of Bernard, a luppoaition, aayi 



ly di-proved, 

nee the conspiracy 

™ ?°' 

Louii' ample pablic apology on their restoration 
vtUt BiuirvpAie G^i^nilt, Loui>' courliera painted 

Ut u hie 

It Corbia. 



dnU most b€ fixed his mission-tour into Saxonj, 
and the foundation of New Corbey, as it is spelt, 
in the diocese of Paderbom. It seems from the 
statement of Sainte-Marthe, that the origination 
of this scheme was due to Wala and the younger 
Adalhard, but our Saint is reckoned its first 
abbat. He returned to his old monastery in 
823, and lived there in the practice of great aus- 
terities and Tirtues till his death, at the age of 
73, in 826. Several parish churches in the 
Netherlands and on the Lower Rhine, are dedi- 
cated to St. Adalhard. He is commemorated on 
Jan. 2. He was buried at Corbie: his epitaph 
may be seen in Mabill. Ann, ii. 500. 

Adalhard*s perM>nal character is on all hands 
allowed to have been very high. If we check 
the rather profuse eulog^ies of his biographers 
with the ascertained historical facts in which he 
took part, our impression will be that he main- 
tained through a long life of more than common 
difficulties a very high standard of integrity and 
of personal goodness. He had high adminis- 
trative qualities, which were developed during 
the actual government of his own monastery, 
and the virtual government of a kingdom. He 
seems to have retained through life a singular 
degree of humility. He would often seek advice 
from the meanest monk, and he was noted for a 
singular faculty of shedding tears. (The me- 
tonym Jeremiah belongs, however, says Mabillon, 
to his brother Wala.) His liberality bordered 
on profusion, but the present age would render 
its warmest acknowledgments to his anxiety for 
the promotion of learning beyond the walls of 
his own monastery. See Gialmers' Biog, Diet, 
He was celebrated in debate, Agobard praises 
his wisdom in the Conventus of Attigny, 822. 
(Mab. Ann. ii. 467). He was present at Com- 
pline in 823. 

The writings of Adalhard were probably nu- 
merous, but many have perished, and as many 
GThape, existing in MS., are still unpublished, 
abillon intended to print some Capituia of in- 
structions to his monks, which he found on the 
same MS. as the Statuta of Corbie (Act. SS. o. a. 
B. V. 308X and 52 sermons (Nouvelle Biographie 
OenSrale). He did publish a piacitwn of Adal- 
liard's, in his Iter Italicum, i. 53-56. His most 
important work, De ordine Palatii, is lost, but 
Hincmar, who had seen Adalhard and copied this 
work, gives some considerable extracts (^Opp. ed 
Paris, 1645, ii. 206-215> Hincmar mentions 
another lost treatise on the Paschal Moon. Adal- 
hard's Statuta Antiqua Abbatiae CorbiensiSy copied 
from the original MS., dated Jan. 822, are in 
D*Achery*s l^'picilegium, i. 586-592. A letter 
addressed to a certain Count by Adalhard, Fulrad 
and another, as J/isn of Charles, dating, says Jaffe^ 
between 801 and 814, may be seen among £pp. 
Carolinae, Bib. Her. German, iv. 417. 

All authors who have written with any care 
on this period mention Adalhard. The following 
notices should be particularized : — Baillet, Viet 
des Saints, i. Jan. 34-37. The dates above are 
chiefly Uken from him. Gall. Chr. z. 1266. 
Mabillon, Ann. ii. passim. See Index Generalis, 
p. 758. Act. SS. Boll. Jan. i. 95-123. Quizot, 
Histcire de la Civilisation en France, ii. 116, 
344-385. [ a D.] 

ADALONGUS (%) (or Adalojtob, Abda- 
LONQUS), Bishop of MARSEiLLf'S, wheu that city 
was betrayed to the Saracens by Maurontus in 


739 : whether they artually occupied I 
puted. Adalongus was inserted among tl 
of March 1 by Molanns in his addi 
Usuardus' Martyrology, but he is not n 
by the modem Breviaries or by the Bd 
QaU. Chr. i. 640; Le Cointe, v. 17. 

(8) (Adaluhc or Adalund, Metrop. i 
iii. 323X with his brothers, Hiltipalt or 
and Antonius or Otakir, founded the Boi 
monastery of Schliersee in Bavaria ■]» 
It was consecrated by Aribo, Bishop of F 
Wigul. Hund {he. citat.) gives the origina 
of foundation, but apparently doubts its 
ness. See also Mabill. Ann. ii. 246. 

ADALTRUDIS, wife of Nemfidiv 
cian, and joint-donor with him of som 
near Digne to the monastery of SS. II 
Victor at Marseilles. Adaltrudis harii 
the veil after her husband's death, tl 
tion was disputed by Antenor the F 
who had surreptitiously removed and b 
instruments kept above the altar of St 
The dispute, taken up by Abbo the P 
came before Charles in 780. Adaltrudii| 
duplicates of the charters, which she 1 
hidden, convinced the missi of the validl 
donation, and her statements being corr 
by inhabitants of Digne, the village in I 
Caladlum (Chandel) was confirmed to tt 
stery. See the instrument which is tk 
rity for this history in Oall. Chr. L Appm 
MabUl. Ann. ii. 252. 

ADALWIN (Teut. =' noble friend^ 
St. Haimeranus, aud 4th, or ace to am 
rhyme (in Mabill. Ann. ii. 160), 5tb 1 
Regensburg. In 792, two years after hi 
bishop, he presided at a council whidi 
during a years' stay at Regensburg for tl 
cut ion of his war against the Huns, n 
for the condemnation of the Felician haii 
Einhardi Ann. and Ann. Lauresham. 1 
M. G. H. i. p. 179, and Mansi ConciL i 
Hund supposes that the transfer of the C 
from the monastery of St. Hairoenum 
church of St. Stephen within the ^ 
Regensburg, which was only confimM 
800 by Pope Leo, was first propoead 
council. He argues the probability I 
exchange was made under pressure froii 
and against the judgment of Adalwin, «1 
death in 814 preferred to be laid amoag 
decessors in the old cathedraL Metrapk i 
188; Mabill. ilnn. ii. 303. 


Adam AND Eve. In 1853 Dillmann n| 
the 5th vol. of Ewald's JahrbQcher d. biHi 
schaft a work, half history, half religions i 
under the name The Book of Adam of th§ i 
East— Das chrislliche Adamhuch d. Orim 
published separately, Gottingen, 18AI 
original was an Ethiopic MS. at Ttibing 
cent paper copy brought home by the M 
KrapfT from A byssinia. The fulf title in 
is "The conflict of Adam and Eve whidki 
to wage after their expulsion from tlH 
and during their stay in the Cave of 1 
according to the command of the Li 
Creator and Preserver." This descriptii 
with the contents of the first 70 pages m 
125 oocupicd by the translation. But I 
proceeds without the slightest break to 4 


a vaallcr aeale the fortniMS of the patriarchs 
4*wii to Melchiaedec, who is made a son of 
Csimui and grandson of Arphazad. Here too 
(Pl 116) there is no decisive hreak; bat the nar- 
ntiT* changes its character, be&>ming very 
hticf and chieBj occupied with chronology and 
fcnealogy. The legendary matter is slight and 
scatter^ and lacks the rigour of the earlier 
fMm. Here also for the first time (at least in 
dearlT genuine portions of the text) appear dis* 
tinct literary notices, direct quotations from the 
Bible, and Christian doctrines nakedly set forth. 
The last page of all contains allusions to Adam 
and Ere and to the * treasures * of their ' cave,* 
bat feebly expressed and nowise answering to 
the bold prophetic language of the original 
anther. The account of the meeting of Mel- 
rhiscdec and Abraham (120, 122) shews no ap- 
preciatkMi of the extraordinary office previously 
SHigned to Melchisedec There are moreover 
the^ogical differences which can hnrdly be ac- 
cidenisL The hand of a second author is be- 
tnved by these signs with tolerable certainty. 
The 104 pages (13-116) of the proper work 
^re a few ^ort passages which IooIe much like 
iiterpolatioBS ; not merely heads of s«;tions in- 
enrporated with the text, as noted by Dillmann, 
but didactic comments interrupting the story, 
sad oat of harmony with it (73 f., ? 100 f., 101, 
103, 107 : this last page contains 4 such inser- 
twaa, ooe of them misplaced by 2 lines). The 
•c t a n rence of a similar intrusive paragraph at 
pi 121 indicates that the interpolation is of later 
4ste than the concluding portion of the book. 
To a lika origin we may cafely refer a detached 
Mateoee on the marriage of Noah's sons, which 
irowvlly follows the ** Seventy-two wise in- 
terpreters" ^'in the first of the Greek books of 
tbe Bible" (99). 

Af\er the Fidl, which is not itself described, 
tike exiles are represented as permitted to dwell 
ia the ** Care of Treasures," under the western 
boundary of the Garden. They have to endure 
s lerics of trials, partly from the unfamiliar 
elnnenta of nature, partly from the malice and 
running of Satan, who with his attendant 
*Sataas' assumes various shapes to compass 
their destruction. Tet from the first God makes 
known to them His covenant, promising that in 
dne srasooi they shall be redeemed by His Word 
which created them and which they Hmns- 
grrved * ; and from time to time in their worst 
ertrpmity He visits them either by His Word 
or His antrels, to give them comfort or enlighten- 
■Rot. Soon He prtnnises to take on Himself 
bomaa trouble and death; and when Adam and 
tT« offer on a hastily raised altar their own 
kind, esthered np from the sharp rocks, He 
saanonccs that he will one day offer His own 
Mood on the altar, and * blot out the debts.' At 
His command gold, frankincense, and myrrh are 
Weight by angels, dipped in the water by the 
tfit of life, and given to Adam as * tokens' out 
•f the Garden : these are the sacred 'treasures' 
•f the cave, where they are deposited one on 
•Hh aide, the gold to give light by day and 
■iftt. the frankincense for perfume, and the 
ferrrh for eoosolation. Then follow in order 
vinoos events, all pointing back to the Fall, and 
*n Marking steps in the new life; the begin- 
taf ef clothing, of food, of marriage, of agri- 
ciltare (and with it of an Encharislric offering. 



0^ which Adam and Eve 'communicate*), of 
birth, of rivalry of lovers, and of murder. When 
Adam dies, Seth embalms the body and places it 
in the cave with a light burning before it, and 
then receives a renewal of the covenant. 

The descendants of Seth are warned by one 
patriarch after another to have no dealings with 
the posterity of Cain. At length the catastrophe 
is brought about by Satan's devices in the days 
of Jared, and the time of the Flood draws near. 
Noah earries the body of Adam into the ark, his 
three sons following with the sacred tokens. 
After his death the young Melchisedec, divinely 
summoned to fulfil the command of his fore- 
fathers, approaches the ark. It opens miracu- 
lously at his touch, a voice from heaven pro- 
nounces him priest, and he brings out the body 
of Adam, his great-grandfather Shem bearing 
the tokens. With the help and guidance of 
Michael they journey onwards for three days 
till they reach a spot where the rock opens and 
receives the chest containing the four sacred 
objects. There Melchisedec remains, clothed and 
girded with fire, to serve God before the body of 
Adam to all time. 

Thus ends the original book of Adam : at least, 
thus limited, the narrative forms a complete 
whole. The drama of primitive history is im- 
perfect so long as the body of Adam has not 
reached its final restfng*plaoe. When at length 
it is restored to the ground whence it was 
fiwhioned, on the spot in the centre of the earth 
where the Second Adam is to accomplish redemp- 
tion, and when the priest has been divinely con- 
secrated to serve before it for ever, then the 
work of the First Adam is done. 

The merits of this Book of Adam are of n 
kind to which it is impossible to do justice in a 
bald summary. In the less interesting chronicle 
of O. T. events which follows, though worthy of 
study for the sake of comparison with other 
Oriental traditions of Jewish history, it will 
suffice to notice a few salient points. In the 
days of Nahor, at an interval of 33 years, two 
great storms of wind are said to have swept the 
earth, and broken to pieces all the idols (tl8 f.). 
Peculiar stress is laid on the intermingling of the 
seed of Lot with the people of God in Riith and 
"Emnan" (Naamah, 1 Kings xiv. 21, 31) as re- 
presenting Moab and Ammon (123 f ). I>aniel is 
made to be a son of Jehoiakim, born as his mother 
was being carried captive to Babylon; and H»- 
naniah, Asariah, and Mishael sons of Jechoniah 
(129). There is a curious passage on the fate 
of Jewish writings during the Captivity; "The 
scribes and the expositors [JTargumists ?LXX] 
corrupted the writings, and the Hebrews chani^ed 
them, and the Syrians and Greeks lost a great 
part of them," &c. (130); the seeming purpose 
being to account for the defects in the genealo- 
gies, and especially for the rare occurrence of the 
names of women. " But I, my brother,** the 
author proceeds further on (132), " have studied 
much and explored much in the old writings of the 
Greeks and Hebrews, and have found the names 
of the wives written in them." He accordingly 
supplies from his own stores the information 
which was wanting, he sayn, to the Jews. Of 
his records the mo«t cherished is a genealogy of 
the Virgin Mary. Its absence in ** the olJ hi<»- 
torians" (a strange dcfcription of the Gosi>els) 
had exposed the Christians, he assures us, to the 

D -1 



mockeiy of the Jews. But henoeforth the month 
of the nnbelieTen is stopped, "and now they 
know that Marj is of the seed of David and of 
the seed of the patriarch Abraham." The loss 
of the pedigrees among the Jews he attributes 
to three burnings of** the Law and the Prophets," 
** once in the days of Antiochus, who burnt the 
whole house, the second time when the strong- 
holds of Jerusalem were destroyed, the third time 
when the writings were burnt'* (133). 

The legendary basis of the original work is 
evidently taken from Jewish traditions of greater 
antiquity, probably much older than the N. T., 
and sufficiently widely spread to hare left traces 
even in Mahometanism. The form in which it 
is cast is on the other hand purely Christian. 
The narrative is often diffuse and consequently 
wanting in strength : but the style is admirably 
adapted for its purpose, simple, sincere, and in the 
best sense popular ; and the pervading spirit is a 
pure and deep relirious feeling which seldom flags. 
The direct introaiicti<m of Christian dogma is 
avoided with a true artistic instinct ; while type 
and prophecy are skilfully ocmtrived to shadow 
forth Christian beliefs and rites. Redemption is 
on the whole the prevailing idea. God is set 
forth as carrying on from the first a saving pro- 
cess in man, educating him through a succession 
of ** conflicts" for his flnal restoration to the 
Garden and the r^m of light, and encouraging 
him in the struggles, not merely by ever renewed 
teaching and help, but by an abiding covenant 
from generation to generation and the growing 
hope of a future descent of Himself into the con- 
ditions of human life. These prophecies of the 
Incarnation have an uniform character : they are 
technically Patripassian. Once only (when the 
voice from Adam's body speaks to Helchisedec on 
the second evening of the journey, p. 114; cf. 
p. 14) U it said that **the Word of God" will 
come down and sufier and be crucifled and wet 
the crown of Adam's head with '*His blood." 
Elsewhere the suffering and death are invariably 
predicated of the one "God" or "the Lord" of 
Adam and his children. Of a Son of God or an 
Anointed of God there is nowhere a hint. On 
the other hand in the part of the book which 
follows the establishment of Melchisedec at Gol- 
gotha the Patripassian language completely dis- 
appears: not only is "Christ" freely named, but 
we hear of " the suffering of our Redeemer Jesus 
Christ" (135) and of "our Lord Christ" as 
"crucifled and dying after the body* (137); as 
well as (in an apparent interpolation, p. 121) of 
" the cruciflxion of the Son of God." This pecu- 
liarity of the earlier language is imperfectly ac- 
counted for by the dramatic form ; it can proceed 
only from the belief natural to the author him- 
self. The place held by "the Word of God" is 
very remarkable. Sometimes the term might 
be thought a mere metaphor for God speaking : 
yet oftener the Word of God appears di5tinctly 
as a person. Usually God sends His Word to 
speak to Adam, and His angel or angels to 
help him ; and both modes of intervention are 
often combined in the same incident; while at 
times the Word acts and an angel speaks. In 
one striking passage just before the close (p. 
115) the Word and the angels ascend together 
into heaven. This conception of the Word is 
not of Christian, much less of Alexandrine origin ; 
but it corresponds essentially with that found 


in the Targums, and so represents an early Pa- 
lestinian tradition. The few and slight allv- 
sions to the Holy Spirit are interesting as far as 
they go. Before the Fall His " glories " " satisfy * 
Adam and Eve, so that they neither hunger nor 
thirst (34) : He descends upon accepted sacriflces 
(61, 115): the voice from Adam's body out of the 
ark came to Melchisedec "through the Holy 
Spirit" (113): His measure of length, applied t4» 
the height of the Garden above Eden and to the 
ark, is three times the ordinary measure (83, 

A remarkable negative characteristic of the 
Conflid of Adam cmd Eve is its independence of all 
influence from the Books of Henoch and of Ju- 
bilees. The capital difference lies in the inter- 
pretation of Gen. vi. 1—4, where it is the sons of 
Seth who mix with the daughters of Cain (94 f.\ 
not the watcher angels with the daughters of Seth. 
Here the author (if it be not rather an inter- 
polator : the language on the whole suggests the 
one .alternative, the position of the comment 
[100 f. : cf. 83] the other) argues aeainst what 
" earlier sages have written and said ' on behali 
of the antagonistic view. Elsewhere, as in th« 
names of Adam's daughters and the manner oi 
Cain's death, he ignores the more ancient, oi 
more anciently recorded, legends. 

The time and place at which The Conflict oj 
Adam and Ete was written admit of only a Icosf 
determination. The immediate original of th« 
Ethiopic version, Dillmnnn says confldently (7 f.) 
was not Greek and is shown by various signs ti 
have been Arabic. The names of months an 
Egyptian as pronounced by Arab lips. It follow 
that the Arabic version came into Abyssinia on 
of Egypt, where it must have been executei 
during the period of Arab supremacy, t>. no 
earlier than the 7th century. Again there ar 
no internal signs, of language or of matter, tha 
it was originally composed in Greek; and n 
clear traces of use by Greek or Latin writen 
On the other hand various late Syriac and Arab! 
documents exhibit coincidences too extensive t 
be fortuitous, though it is possible that the 
were indebted to some kindred book constructe 
of similar materials. Much characteristic deta 
appears from Dillmann's notes to recur in a laf 
collection bearing the name of Clement, extai 
in Ethiopic at Tiibingen and apparently in Arab! 
at the Vatican. The same may be said of whi 
appears to .be another recension of the same worl 
an * Apocalypse of Peter' by the hand of Clemen 
preserved in Arabic at Oxford and Rome (Nicol 
Cat, codd. orient. BodL II. i. 49 ff. ; Asseroan 
Cat. codd. orient. Vat. IIL i. 282; cf. Tischei 
dorf, Apocal. Apocr, xx ff.), corresponding wit 
the description of certain Arabic * Revelations 
St. Peter shown to James of Vitry at the siet 
of Damietta in 1219. A still closer connexi« 
is discernible with a Syriac book called The Ca 
of Treasures^ on which some information may ' 
gleaned from various notices in Cureton's pub! 
cations and from Assemani {B. 0. ii. 498 ; i 
281). The two known copies, in the British M 
seum and the Vatican, were both written at t 
beginning of the 18th century in Chaldee lett< 
on paper (Cureton, Corp. Ign. 360; Assemai 
/. c). The verbal coincidences leave no dou 
that The Conflict of Adam and Eve itself su 

Elied, to say the least, the foundation for t 
iter work, which has a much more chrond 


fieal form (partly reproduced in the ' Apocaljpoe 
of Pet«r ') ; and two of the quotations (in Cureton, 
Corp. fjH, 287 ; Spic-a, Syr, 94 f.) shew that the 
sapplementary matter had been already added 
at the end (118 f., 135). On the other hand 
rW ConJIici of Adam and Eve (134) is free from 
the interpolation of 3 names into the genealogy 
taken from Matt. i. (at t. B% which The Cave 
ef Treaguree has in common with some other 
Srriac writings (Cureton, Syr. Oosp, rii f.). 
Thete Tarious marks point to a Syrian origin. 
Cariottsly enough a passage attributed to Ephrem 
kinuelf^ the pride of Syriac literature, from his 
"doctrinal discourses on Paradise," is cited by 
0. Smcellos (L 26 Dind.), the purport of which 
ncsriy coincides with statements in the Conflict of 
Adtm and Ete ; and vi^uer references elsewhere 
to the same effect are not wanting (Dillmann, 10). 
It IS true the passages referred to do not appear in 
Lphrem's published writings. But according to 
iMllmann (10) ** nearly all that is contributed in 
the Book of Adam towards describing the original 
iUt« and the change of man after his banishment 
from the (warden rests on Ephremic thoughts and 
czpreuioos and is to be read here and there in his 
writings, specially in the hymns on Paradise ; and 
erra of th« legends and biblical interpretations 
•ocurrii^ in our book sereral may be distin- 
fdtohed in Ephrem's printed works;" of which 
lis Botes supply instances. Indeed he thinks 
ktmwlf justified in affirming that the author 
fitacr expanded a short (as yet unknown) trea- 
tise of Cpnrem, or worked up the scattered no- 
tices which he found throughout Ephrem 's works. 
It Mcms a more natural inference that both drew 
from a common tradition familiar to Syrian 
Chri>-tlaiu at least as early as the 4th century. 
Dillmann (11) reasonably suggests the 5th or 
Sth century as the probable date of the Conflict. 
The Patripassian language seems to imply a 
popular form of Monophysitism ; and the other 
ialications of doctrine and ritual are hardly com- 
patible with an earlier date; as far at least as 
can be judged while Srriac literature is almost 
wholly buried in manuscript. The Monophysite 
rharacter of the Egyptian Church under the Arabs 
is well known. 

A Life of Adam, described in terms which 
mi^ht be applied to the beginning of the Conflict, 
•rcapies 54 leares in one of D*Abbadie*s Ethiopic 
MSS. (No. 125 of his CaUlogue). He says that 
it b almost unknown in Abyssinia. 

The preface and compressed notes which Dill- 
■Man has added to his beautiful German trans- 
lation are rich in illustrative matter without 
■aperliuities. He pusses orer the theology ; and 
kr 1.JU ftiled to detect the structure of the book, 
la other respects his learning and judgement hare 
pr^ided help such as rarely offers itself to the 
rriders of first editions. But the true charm 
s»l ralue of the book is independent of curious 
er>litina. As an unaffected romance of the 
rSristian Ea;^, s)'mpathetically painting the in- 
Cucr of mankind in the light of God*s 
u; couoiiel, without thought of controversy or 
Uf sect^dary purpose, it stands alone. 

IL Adam,' Testament of. A remarkable 
ItTvnp of fragments, bearing in the MSS. the 
auBC Testitmtnt of aur father Admn the Firsts 
VIS publisbad by Renan in Id.'td (Journal Asia- 
km, >er. r. t. ii. pp. 427-470) with a translation, 
tttiuductioB, aad illostratire iiotas. it is aatant | 



only in Syriac and Arabic versions, with a double 
recension in each language. Part of the Syriae 
text is likewise printed in Wright's Syriac Apth 
crypha, pp. 61 (t. There are altogether four parts, 
but the 4th occurs only in a single Syriac MS., 
which omits the seo(»id. The first two are 
clofiely connected: they are a Horarium of the 
unirerse for night and for day, distinguishing at 
each of the 34 hours the adoration paid by some 
one order of created beings, as angels and demons, 
men, animals, abysses, &c The third part, frag- 
mentary in the Syriac, headed More of Adam our 
first father, contains short prophecies spoken by 
Adam to Seth, relating to the Incarnation, the 
restoration of Adam, the making of the cross (such 
is eridently the sense) from the wood of the fig-tree 
identified with the tree of knowledge, and the 
Deluge. It ends as follows **And I Seth hare 
written this testament; and after the death of 
my &ther Adam my brother and I buried him 
at the east of Paradise, opposite the town of 
Henoch, the first which was built on the earth. 
And the angels and the virtues of the hearens 
themselres celebrated his obsequies, because he 
had been created in the image of Qod. And the 
sun and the moon were darkened, and there was 
darkness during seven days. And we sealed 
this testament, and placed it in the Care of 
Treasures, where it has remained to this day, 
with the treasures which Adam had brought out 
of Paradise, the gold, the myrrh, and the frank- 
incense. And the sons of the Magian kines shall 
come and take them and bring them to the Son 
of God in the cave of Bethlehem of Judah." 
Then follows a colophon ** End of the Testament 
of our fiither Adam." The fourth part is called 
More of the Teet€tment of our father Adam. It is 
a short account of the different orders of ** hea- 
venly powers," angels, archangels, principali- 
ties, &C. 

These fragments evidently represent a work 
current under different titles in the early ages. 
Epiphanius {Haer. 89 b) notices ' revelations 
(apocalypses) of Adam ' along with * many ' apo- 
cryphal writings in Seth's name among the books 
held sacred by his 'GnoKtici,' an Ophitic sect. 
From the form of his language Liicke {Einl. in d, 
Ofenb. Joh. 232) has doubtfully inferred the 
existence of one or more Apocalypses of Adam 
recognised by the Church ; and appealed in con- 
firmation to the ascription of ** ecstasy*' and 
prophecy to Adam by Tertullian {De an. 11) in 
reference to Gen. ii. 24 (or Eph. v. 31 f): but 
neither panage will bear the strain. *A book 
which is called the Jiepentance of Adtm, apo- 
cryphal,' is condemned in the GelasiAU Decree 
(vi. ."K) in Credner, Zur Qetoh. d. Kanom, 219); 
that is either at Rome about 500 or (apparently) 
in Spain between 500 and 700 (Credner, 282-9). 
According to Samuel of Ani, an Armenian histo- 
rian, about 590 a band of Syrian Nestorians, 
** men of honeyed words," entered Armenia in- 
tending to propagate their doctrine, but were 
driven away with anathemas. They translated 
however their sacred books for the benefit of 
some disciples whom they made. These books 
wi«re the Kaurdosag, the Guiragosag, the Vision 
of St. Paul, the Repentance of Adam, the Testa- 
ment [sic"], the Infancy of the Loi-d, the Sebioa^ 
the Cluster of Blessing [of (lennod. de vir. HI. 1^ 
the Book which ought not to be hid, and the £i- 
positioa of the (kspel of Hani (Kenan, 4^0 t a« 



the mnthoritj of M. Dalaarier). In this enig- 
matical and mLscellaneous list The Rtptntance of 
Adam if distinguished from The Testameni. Tet 
if, as appears likely, Adam's name belongs to both 
titles, the nature of the existing fragments is 
not such as to compel us to suppose that thej 
designate two wholly distinct books. 0« Syn- 
cellns (18) and Cedre'nns (i. 17) saj that * Adam 
in his 60(Hh jear repented and knew bj rerela- 
tion the thing concerning the Watchers [the 
*8ons of Ood ' in Gen. ri. 1 ff.] and the Deluge, 
and repentance and the Dirine Incarnation, and 
the prayers which are sent up to God at erery 
hour of day and night from all creatures through 
Uriel the archangel of repentance :" and Cedrenus 
adds an enumeration for 12 hours which agrees 
rery nearly with the Syriac ** Hoars of Day." 
firery head in this passage except the Watchers 
and Uriel (cf. B. of Henoch ix. 1 j xx. 2, ttc, and 
Dillmann, p. 98) co r respo nd s with something in 
the extant fragments : and it li to be obserred 
that ** repentance " and ** rerelation " are promi- 
nent words, while ** testament " holds a yet more 
significant place in the Syriac prophecy. Thus 
the three names are brought together. The au- 
thority chiefly followed hereabouts by G. Syn- 
eellus and Cedrenus is the Book of Jubilees, In 
one place a Life of Adam is referred to by G. 
Syncellus (9); but there is nothing except in- 
ternal evidence to shew the origin of the passage 
quoted abore. The Apostolic Constitutions (vi. 
16) mention Adam among the 0. T. personages 
whose names were aflized to apocryphal books. 

The name "Testament" is familiar in apo- 
eryphal literature to denote the supposed last 
words of a prophet. Besides the Tutaments of 
the 7W/o» Patriarchs we hear of the T. of Moses 
fin the catalogue of books appended to the 
Uhronography e^Nioephorus ? Credher, /.c. p. 121X 
and the T. of Job (Decret. Gelas. »&. 220). Nor 
was it unnatural that such last words should be 
regarded as the fruit of a ** repentance " (cf. 
Test, Bub. t, 2 — jcal ySy AKolnrari /aov, r^Kva, ft 
f78oy ... 4¥ rf fi9rayol(f M^v). Thus the 
Gelasian Decree (/. o. 220) notices a Bepentance 
of Origen^ a B. of 8t. Cyprian^ and a B. of 
Jamnes and Jiambres, The hymns uttered by 
the Pistis Sophia, in the Gnostic work bearing 
the same name, are likewise, as Renan (p. 430) 
points out, called " repentances ** (47, 51 f. &c.). 

The Hours and the Prophecy have every 
appearance of forming parts of one work. In 
each Adam speaks to Seth, and refers to his 
past sin, and there is considerable similarity of 
tone. They are probably however mere ex- 
tracts : the several passages are disconnected, 
and the dramatic framework is perceptible only 
at the end. A sort of introduction indeed occurs 
in the Arabic recensions, which likewise place 
the hours of day before those of night (Renan, 
462 ff.) ; and the materials may well have been 
derived from a corresponding part of the original 
work: thia is however all that can safely be 
allowed. The fourth part, on the Heavenly 
EQerarchy, may possibly belong to the same book 
as the other Syriac fragments, as it certainly 
belongs to the same literature: but it is ad- 
dwui to ** my friends " instsitd of Seth, and 
it reads rather like a later appendix. Internal 
eridance suggests that *the Repentance of 
Adam ' is merely a second title ; and the same 
naj be laid, though with less certainty, of * the 


Revelations of Adam.' The book doubtlessly 
underwent various modifications, as indeed ia 
shown by the existing texts ; and the names may 
belong to different recensions. Strangely enougl^ 
in one of the Arabic MSS. " our text forms part ol 
an apocryphal work attributed to St. Clement, and 
entitled The secret books of purity " (Renan, 438, 
471 ; and see above, p. 36, b). It evidently 
enters likewise into the composition of the * Apoca- 
lypse of Peter ' mentioned under I. (Nicoll, Cat, 
Cod. Or, Bodl. II. L 49 ff.) Traces of it occur 
elsewhere in the catalogues of Syriac and Arabia 

In the Coptic Apostolic Constitutions (80-8S 
Tattam), where private prayers are enjoined at 
every third honr (cf. Clem. Strom, vii. 40, 
p. 864), there are traces of the characteristir 
language of the Syriac " Hours : " they an* 
wanting in the corresponding Greek recension 
(viii. 34). At the seventh hour of the night and 
tenth of the day mention is made of healing of 
the sick by unction with holy oil (cf. James v. 
14 f.) which ** the priest of God " mingles with 
water. The reference to the legend of the * Cave 
of Treasures ' at the end of the Prophecy implies 
a connexion with the Confiict of Jidam amd Eve 
published by Dillmann. An earlier paragraph 
gives Lebora as the name of the sister for whom 
Cain was jealous of Abel, and makes her tht 
younger sister. * Lebora ' probably represents 
the LuvA of the Conflict: but the exact form, 
as also the inversion of the two sisters, is found 
now only in late and secondary authorities, e. g. 
Eutychius. Lastly Renan (p. 464) points out 
a connexion between some passages in Eutychiuj 
and in one of the Arabic recensions. Then 
various coincidences are not however suflicieni 
to fix the age or country of the Testament <) 
Adam, If it is the book meant by Epiphanius 
it cannot be later than the 4th century, an< 
nothing decisive can be urged against this date 
though it is impossible to speak with confidence 

The Testamenty as it stands, is short an 
unpretending: yet a lofty spirit pervades 
great part of it. The leading idea of the Hour 
is the community of all created things in th 
adoration of their Maker. The last hour of th 
day is assigned to the ^* Prayer of men to th 
benevolent Will r«d5ojc(a] which dwells befoi 
God, Lord of all things." In the Prophecy Adai 
is assured that his premature desire to become 
god shall be fulfilled at last as a result of tl: 
Incarnation and Glorification, so that he sha 
learn, " he and his children, that there is 
justice in heaven." No distinctive doctrine 
to be found beyond what lies in the passag 
already citnL There is no evidence that tl 
Testament is of Gnostic origin (Renan, 428, 434 J 
in the proper sense of the word, though li) 
other apocr^'phal productions claiming the auth 
rity of 0. T. names it may have been used 1 
some Gnostic sects. But it appears to lie outsi 
Greek and Latin Christianity, and is thus .' 
interesting monument of an almost unknoi 
world of ancient creeds. 

III. Life of Adam. See under I. and II. 


demned in the Gelasian Decree (ap. Credner, Z 
Gesch. d. Kan, 218) as apocryphal. A second ti' 
(if the reading is sound) is * Leptogenesis,' whi 
usually means the Book of Jubilees. As howet 
the daughters of Adam there oocupy only 6 lii 


■ tht 4l1i chapUr, aooM other book mppean to 
be miuit ; unlesft * Gelasius ' knew it only bj 
tkis relereiioe («. g, (Vein Epiph. Haer, 287 B% 
and inrentod the first title. 

V. Stoet and Ooxversation of Adam. 
As JewUh legend famished materials to the 
S5'riaA Christians who wrote 1. and II., so 
aaoihcr form of it is in like manner the base 
ef a Greek work not onworthj to be classed 
with them. The Story €tnd Convenatiom of 
Adam fcwf Evt], rgrealed hy Qod to Moses [read 
Beth'] His servamtf taujht by the archangel Michaei 
(sQch is the simplest of the descriptire titles 
feoad in MSS.), begins, after the first few lines, 
vith tht murder of AbeL At Qod's bidding 
Michael commands Adam *'The mystery which 
thon knowest proclaim not to Cain thy son, for 
hi b a SMI of wrath : but grieve not, for I will 
give thee instead of him another son ; he shall 
slicw thee all that thou shalt do " (3). By this 
btrodactiMi Seth is at once marked as the organ 
ef rerelatioa, and he is distinguished throughout 
by nwcial prerogatives ; so that the proper title 
•f the book would be the Apocalypse of Seth, 
Another independent work seems to be incorpo- 
rsied in the middle, probably with little change, 
iitenmptiBg the narrative for 17 chapters by a 
eoofeasioB from Eve's lips: it might well be 
called a Tesiamerd or Jiepentaitoe of Eve. 

The tme subject of the book is the death of 
Adam, and his giving place to Seth. In his 
aortal siekneas he collects his sons around him. 
Afflicted at his groans, Eve and Seth approach 
the Qarden to pray for the oil of mercy from the 
Tree, but in vain: he will die, Michael tells 
them, within three days. Eve then describes 
*ke drcumstances of the Fall at great length 
(cc li-30), the embellishments of the Biblical 
scoonnt having at times some imaginative beauty. 
She goes out to pray, but is raised up by an 
aayel to see Adam (his spirit) borne up in a 
chariot of light. He is washed in the Acherusian 
lake, and committed by **the Father of the uni- 
verse" to Michael to be placed in the third 
hean^ God Himself descends to give promises 
of restoration and resurrection to the body. It 
is buried by angels, and Abel's body with it. 
Within a week Eve is laid in the same grave, 
and Michael returns to heaven singing Halle- 

Vsri<vns echoes of N. T. language indicate that 
the book is of Christian origin, though there is 
BO quotation and no distinct Christian doctrine. 
The phrases •son of wrath' (3X *Thy elect 
salvia' (32), * vials' associated with 'incense 
(is, mx perhaps ** the Father of lights " (36, in 
eae MS. onlv, but that the bestX **the third 
httvcn * along with ** Paradise " (37, 40), the 
taming of sorrow into joy (39), " Receive my 
ipirit ** (42X and some others less distinct, when 
tskcn together, sufficiently betray their origin : 
Wt they are confined to the Sethian chapters. 
Besidea the borrowing of the ftramework and 
nnons dotails from Jewish tradition, there are 
fmats of connexion with other extant apocryphal 
books, as in Seth*s quest of the ** oil of mercy " 
(». 13; Ee. Mrod, 19% and the dipping by 
lacels in the Acherusian lake (Apoc. Pauii 22, p. 
SI Tisch. : cf. put. I'haed. 1 13 A). The original 
laagvage appears to be Greek: the biblical 
aarrative is evidently used in Eve's confetision 
tknm^ this na^iiumof the LXX. (c£ 37 sve^n^- 



Tof npivsis^ Ps. Ixxv. 3), and the play of words ia 
the phrase 'oil of mercy' can be only Greek (rk 
(kKator — sometimes written lAsoi"— row 4\4o¥t 
see Thilo, Cod, Apocr. 687 f.). Grammar however 
and inflexions are of a debased type, and the tone 
is that of an Oriental population, such as might 
be found in Palestine or Western Syria. It seema 
impoasible at present to find evidence at to 
date : no early century from the second onwards 
can be put out of question. 

The work was first publUhed in 1866 ia 
Tischendorfs Apocalypses Apocryphae under tht 
fictitious title Apocalypsis Mosis, Moses ia 
named in the headings of the 4 known MSS. ; but 
there is not the slightest reference to him in the 
text, and the narrative is in the third person 
except in c 34, where (? by inadvertence) Eve ia 
made the speaker. It seems likely that 2H9 
or Tn 2He should be read for MHSH, though 
the by no means uniform headings may have 
received their present shape after the substitu- 
tion had taken place. Two of the MSS. (a b) 
present a recension deformed by verbose amplifi* 
cations and other changes, and unforiunately 
this is the chief source of Tischendorfs text. 
The purest as well as earliest MS. (d) is i*epro- 
duced in full in Ceriani's Monumenta Sacra et 
Profana (V. L 21 ff. MiUn 1868X specimens only 
having been used by Tischendorf ; but 18 chapters 
are wanting in the middle. No one of the 4 MSS. 
is complete; and the text is in a bad state 
in all. There is an English version of Tischen- 
dorfs text in the volume of the * Ante-Nicene 
Christian Library ' devoted to Apocryphal litera- 

VI. Liber Adami, also known as CodeM 
Nasaraeus^ properly The Great Book or Treasure 
of the Mandaiteb. [H.] 

ADAMANTIUS.— t [Orioen.] 
2. The name of the orthodox interlocutor in a 
Dialogue against various heresies. The author 
is unknown : but at an early period it was as- 
sumed that he must be identical with * Adaman- 
tius : ' for similar cases see Ahchelaus, Bar- 
DEISAN, Caius. The next step was to suppoM 
that by *Adamantius' must be meant Origen, 
whose name stands at the head in some if not all 
MSS. and in a short Greek summary. This 
confusion must have taken place before 380, if a 
note at the end of c 24 of the Origenian Philo- 
calia was written by the compilers ; but this is 
uncertain. Again Annstasius Sinaita {Hodeg, 
qu. 48) in the 6th century quotes the Dialogue 
under Origen's name. On the other hand about 
453 Theodoret refers to ^Adnmnntiu?' and 
Origen separately among his authorities {Haer, 
fab, i. praef. 25). These are the only allusions 
to the book in ancient times. 

Origen's authoi*ship, though defended by J. 
R. Wetstein and others, does not merit serious 
discussion. Style, doctrine, and indications of 
date are alike conclusive. Again internal evi- 
dence gives no support to the conjecture that 
Origen was dramatically intended as the chief 
speaker under the name Adamantius ; indeed 
the author cannot have been an admirer of 
Origen. But such suppositious are needless, 
for * Adamantius' is a sufficiently common 
name. The date is approximately fixed by an 
allusion to the contemporary " God-fearing *" 
emperor, who " built up what " his persecuting 
predecessors ^^ pulled down, loved what the^ 



liat«d, and palled down the temples and idols 
which they honoured " (i. p. 816 £ Ru. = 282 
Lom.) ; a description which applies to no one but 
Constiintine in his later years (330-337 ; cf. Hci- 
nichen on Eos. Vit, Contt. iii. 54). With this 
period agrees the language about ** the God- Word 
consubstantial, eternal " (i. p. 804 C Ru. = 255 
Lorn.), and ** the Holy Trinity consubstantial and 
inseparable " (r. p. 871 D Ru. = 416 Lom.X which 
points to the recent (325) determination of Nicaea. 
The Dialogue moreover makes Urge use of the 
writings of Methodius, who suffered about 312 
(Clinton, F. R. i. 361) ; chiefly his treatise On 
Free WiU (Routh, ReL Sac, ii. 79 ff. ; Alb. Jahn, 
Method. PUxtmizans, Halle 1865, pp. 118-124), 
but also that On the Restwrection (Jahn 79, 87). 
The principal passage taken (with some abridge- 
ment) from the former work is likewise given 
entire by Eusebius (P. E, vii. 21 f.) as from a 
treatise On Matter by Maximus, a writer whom 
he elsewhere {ff. E. v. 27) places at the end of 
the 2nd century ; and from Eusebius it was 
copied into the Philocalia 0.,c.\ where It stands 
alone among genuine extracts from Origen. 
Routh pointed out that the Dialogue was im- 
mediately indebted not, as is usually suid, to 
Maximus but to Methodius : we are not therefore 
further concerned Mrith Maximus here. The 
author possibly threw his argument into a 
dialogue in imitation of Methodius, four at least 
of whose works were dialogues ; though the 
borrowed matter retains hardly a trace of its 
original form in this respect. Neander's con- 
jecture {Gnost, Syst. 206 f.) that the whole 
treatise is a patchwork made up of different 
genuine dialogues of the 3rd century, such as 
that said to hare been held by Origen with 
Candidus (Hier. c. Ruf. ii. 19), has nothing to 
recommend it : but it is likely enough that the 
author made liberal use of works now lost. 

The heading in seme, perhaps all, MSS. is 
Against the MardonistSf a title which applies 
only to a small part. The summary alr^y 
noticed describes the Dialogue as being " on the 
right faith in God," and the early translators 
adopted these words as a title : but it is not 
satisfactory. In the Greek editions the Dia- 
logue is cut into five sections ; a perverse ar- 
rangement which disguises the true structure. 
The MSS. (? all) with better reason divide into 
three dialogues, of which the former two answer 
to Sections I. II., and the third has three heads, 
(1) without a title, (2) On the Christ, (3) On the 
Resurrection, The last corresponds with Wet- 
stein's Section V. : his III. and IV. are arbitrary. 
Properly speaking the whole Dialogue falls into 
two paru, A (Sections I. II.) against two Mar- 
ciomsts, and B (Hi. — V.) against a Bardesanist: 
each part ends with a formal judgement by the 
umpire. The second part is clearly divided into 
three heads, with transitive speeches from the 
umpire (849 A B Ru. = 360 f. Lom. in IV., and end 
of 1 v.). Two Valeutinians are brought in to com- 
plete the discussion of the great question of the 
origin of evil under the first head, and a Marcion- 
ist briefly interrupts the argument of the first 
and third heads. When the umpire is apparently 
about to give his final decision, the subject of 
the first part is resumed by an argument with 
one of the Marcionists, and then the Dialogue is 
brought to a close in due form. On the whole it 
feems likely that the author began by writing 


the first part as an independent work, and at a 1at«r 
time continued it by the more composite second 
part, taking advantage of the opportunity to add 
near the end a last word on the earlier subject. 
There are no traces whatever of interpolation. 

In I. Adamantius a Otholic and Megethius m 
Mardonist agree to hold an amicable contro- 
versy before the heathen Eutropius as umpire ia 
the presence of an audience. Each disputant 
states his own * definition ' of primary doctrinei 
Megethius declaring for three first * principles/ 
the (}ood Qodf the Demiurge, and the Evil One. 
Afler a short discussion, closed by an orthodox 
dictum from Eutropius, Megethius proceeds to 
attack the authority of the canonical gospels oa 
various grounds, and then returns to the three 
'principles,' arguing chiefly from the supposed 
antagonism of the Law and the Gospel. Here 
(II.) Marcus another Marcionist interposes^ 
maintaining two * principles' only, by identi- 
fying the Demiurge or Just God with the Evil 
()ne. The argument is mainly conducted by 
reference to so much of the N. T. as the Mar> 
cionists accepted. At the close Eutropius pro* 
nounces in favour of Adamantius, and prays to be 
himself **numbered with " 'Hhe Catholic Church." 
Marinus a Bardesanist now (III.) desires to 
dispute with Adamantius before the umpire. 
He dissents from Catholic doctrine on three 
heads, the creation of the devil by God, the 
birth of Christ from a woman, and the resur- 
rection of the body. In one place Megethius, 
though at first checked by Eutropius as having 
had his say, strikes in to express agreement with 
the doctrine that the substances of good and evil 
are alike without beginning or end. Presently 
(IV.) Droserius declares his discontent with thi 
arguments of Marinus and his wish to substituti 
" the definition of Valentmus " on the origin ol 
evil, such definition being in fact part of tlH 
Valentinian's exposition in Methodius's Dialogw 
on Free WiU. To this Adamantius soon opposei 
his own 'definition," which is the oi'thodoi 
reply from the same Dialogue, attributed (as w( 
have seen) by Eusebius to Maximus. In thl 
midst Valens another Valentinian objects U 
the doctrine of Droserius that matter existed 
prior to its qualities. At length Eutropius agail 
decides for the teaching of the Chui*ch, and caUi 
on Marinus to plead, if he chooses, on his seconc 
head. In the rest of the section acoordingli 
the Bardesanist doctrine of Christ's ** heavenly 
body is discussed, and Eutropius gives judgemea* 
as before, bidding Marinus proceed to his thin 
objection. In the last section (V ) the resur 
rection of the body is impugned and defended 
first on physiological and then on biblica 
grounds. Once Megethius interrupts Adaman 
tius to protest against his reading of 1 Cor 
XV. 38 as at variance with Marcion's. The die 
cussion is ended by a declaration of Eutropiu 
that he has i>een satisfied about the resurrecti<HB 
Adamantius asks to expound his own view posi 
tively, as founded on Scripture ; but soon break 
ofl', exclaiming impatiently at the want of compe 
tent cultivation (diwaiZttHria) in his antagonisti 
Eutropius declares that want to be the cans 
of all worthless things (^avXwv) : in it, he sayi 
were born and bred (]^ <ru/Kv«^uircurt irai <rvi4i» 
$ri<rdv) Megethius, Droserius and Marcus, Valca 
and Marinus. Once more Adamantiu^ sets hin 
self to refute the Marcionists* doctrine out c 


thtir owB apostle Si. PaqI, and a short dispata* 
Una with Marcos ensues. Finally, Eutropiiu 
profMscs bimself satisfied with the argnnients of 
Adsmantsos and anxious to join the Oitholic 
Church, OB which and its doctrine he prononnoes 
ss elahorata panegyric The concluding accla- 
■stioa in praisa of Adamantius is probably not 

The Dialogue cannot rank with the produe- 
tMas of the greater Fathers ; jret it has eon- 
siitrable merits of its own. We look in rain 
for depth of thought or eleration of tone ; but 
irgumcntatiTe and exegetical power are by no 
Bcsas wanting. The heretics and their doc- 
tnaes can scarcely be said to be £&irly treated, 
sad a somewhat offensive air of intellectual 
fiperionty is assumed towards them. On the 
other hand a genuine attempt is made to re* 
produce a part at least of their arguments ; and 
there is hardly any scurrility. The contmrersy 
H to all appearance with the nameless heretics of 
Uie authors own day, not directly with the writ- 
mp or original doctrines of Marcion, Bardeisan, 
sad Valentinus. The literary merits of the work 
ue deanees and occasionally some little vigour. 
it a dialogue it shews no dramatic power ; in- 
deed the language of the heathen umpire for 
tfie moat part whimsically resembles that of the 
•rthodoz champion. The style is bald and un- 
lUnctire ; and not a few words, inflexions, and 
eoatct ructions belong to a rude and popular form 
if Greek. 

The Dialogue was printed first in Latin, trans- 
lated from a single MS. by John Pic, at Pans 
b 1566. Another version, paraphrastic in cha- 
racter, by Lawrence Humphrey one of the 
Zurich refugees, from a US. lent by Froben, 
it dated Basel 1557, but appeared first, ac- 
cording to Wetstein, in the Basel Origen of 1571. 
It was reprinted by Genebrard (ii. 533 ff.\ along 
with a third translation bv P^rion (i. 497 ff.), in 
ku Paris Crimen of 1574. The first Greek 
•dition, containing likewise Origeo's Exhortation 
t> Martyrdom and EpisUe to A/ricanuSy is due to 
J. K. WeUUin the younger, Basel 1674. It has 
a T^noon and copious notes, which supply some 
food tl lustrations as well as abundance of worth- 
ier matter. WeUUin followed a Basel MS., 
pr<*faablr that used by Humphrey, and obtained 
kMue information from Hyde alwut an Oxford 
M.S. (see below). The Dialogue was included by 
l*e la Kue in his great edition of Origen. Paris 
17 U (i. 800-872) : he somewhat improved the 
Uxt with the help of four MSS., Vatic. 1089, 
two at Paris (evidently Reg. 56, 21 9X and one 
Wlooging to T. Gale, now at Trinity College, 
<liiB bridge, a modem copy of an Oxford MS., 
tri.Uotly Bodi. Gr. Misc. 25 (ol. 2040). De la 
kat is followed by the later reprintv of Origen's 
aurks. Besides these five MSS. others are said 
\» exist at Dublin (288) and Venice (496). 
TnaJty College, Cambridge, possesses a copy 
«f Beg. 5d, with various readings and supple- 
BtttU from Keg. 1219, made at Paris for Isaac 

Trie Dialogue has shared the neglect which 
aiasily befiils works unfortunate enough to be 
«S"wn as * sporiooa.' For both text and illustra- 
Uia it lasds and deserves a good edition. [H.] 

ADAHANTUR [Adantus.] 

ADAJLia— COrarrcs.] 



ADAMIANL — ^An obscure sect who sup* 
posed themselves to be restoring primitive inno- 
cence by calling their community Paradise, and 
worshipping in a state of nudity. They met for 
divine service in hypocausts. They stripped at 
the door (where chamberlains were stationed to 
receive the clothes), entered and sat down naked, 
both sexes alike, and so continued while the 
readings and other parts of the service proceeded. 
The ofiice-bearers and teachers were mixed in- 
discriminately with the rest of the congregation. 
The whole sect professed absolute continence; 
and excluded from communion any offender 
against the rule, alleging as a precedent Adam's 
expulsion from the darden after eating the for- 
bidden fruit. 

Such is the report fhmished by Epiphanius 
(Haer. lii. 458 ff.). He states expressly that 
he followed oral accounts, having never met 
with anv Adamians or found them noticed in 
books ; and he affects a gratuitous scepticism as 
to their existence. He supplies no mark of 
place or time, but oral statements would pro- 
bably be contemporary ; hence the date seems to 
be the middle of the 4th century. Later writers 
merely borrow from Epiphanius. 

Theodoret {Haer, fab, i. 6) gives the name 
Adamitae to the followers of Prodicus, whether 
on good authority or by a confusion, it is im- 
possible to say. There is at all events no ground 
for supposing any connexion between the two 
sects. [H.] 

ADAIINAN, an Irish name, the diminutive 
of Adam, and interpreted by Colgan Parvug 
Adam, (1) The first who is of record as so 
called was a Scot, of Irish extraction, who 
happens to be mentioned by Bede (^H. E, iv. 
25) in connection with Coludi-urbs (Colding- 
ham), a mixed monastery, situated on the 
Border, in the modern Berwickshire. As a 
young man he had committed some offence 
which weighed upon his mind, and was revealed 
in confession to an Irish priest. A penitential 
course of life having been prescribed to him, in 
which brevity was intended to be coupled with 
intensity, the confessor returned to Ireland, and 
soon after died. Adamnan resolved upon a 
voluntary continuance in his strict discipline 
until the end of his life, and remained at 
Coldingham, from about 670, in the practice 
of the utmost self-denial, tasting meat and 
drink only on Sundays and Thursdays, and fre- 
quently spending whole nights in watching and 
prayer. He observed with sorrow the laxity of 
discipline in the monastery, and, it is said, had 
a revelation of its approaching destruction by 
fire which came to pass after the death of 
the abbess Aebba, about the year 679. He 
is commemorated in the English Martyrology 
of Wilson at the 3Ut of January, at which day 
his festival is found in Colgan (Actt, SS. Hib. 
p. 224) and hollandus {Actt, SS, Jan, tom. iii.) 
See also Mabillon AruujU. 0. S, Bened, tom. i. 
p. 510. 

(2) Ninth abbot of Hy or lona (smI. 679>704), 
the most able and accomplished of St. Columba's 
successors (Bede H, E, v. 15, 21). He was 
born in Irelaud, at Drumhome, in the south- 
west of the county of Donegal, and was, by 
bis father Ronan, of the same lineage as Si. 
Columba. By his mother, Ronnat, he vas coo- 



iMct«d with that branch of the Hj-Neill race, 
who occupied the district where Rath-both 
(Raphoe) was situate ; of which church, when it 
became a bishop's see, he was, under the softened 
name of Eunan (ADUAMHNAN=Ownan, Onan, 
Eunan), adopted as the patron saint. He entered 
the monastery of Uj under Seghine, the fifth 
abbot, during whose incnmbencjr, and that of 
the three immediate successors, he acquired such 
a reputation for piety and learning as recom- 
mended him for the presidency of the Columbite 
order, now in the meridian of celebrity and im- 
portance. On the death of Failbhe, the eighth 
abbot, in 679, Adamnan was chosen his successor, 
being now fifty-Hrc years of age. Among his 
contempomries were the valiant Bruide, son of 
Bile, sovereign of the Pictv and Aldfrid, the 
Northumbrian prince, who had been an exile in 
Ireland, and was styled by the natives Daita 
Adhamnain^ or ** alumnus of Adamnan." The 
death of Ecgfrid, in 685 ("post bellum Ecgfridi," 
Adam. Vit Col, ii. 46), restored Aldfrid to hU 
country and the enjoyment of his hereditary 
rights ; so that, when his former instructor, now 
abbot of Hy (^ |n«8byt«r et abbas monachorum qui 
erant in insula Hii," — Bede, H, E, v. 13), went, 
in the year following, on a mission to procure 
the liberation of some Irish captives whom Beret 
had carried off from Meath (Bede, H, E. iv. 26; 
Tighemach, 685X he was received at the North- 
umbrian court with great kindness, and succeeded 
in bringing baclc to Ireland, in the enjoyment of 
their liberty, sixty of his fellow-countrymen 
(Tighernach, 687). 

In 688 he visited King Aldfrid a second time, 
having been sent by his nation on an embassy to 
him (Adam. Vit. (JoL ii. 46). On this occasion 
he made some stay in Northumbria, during which 
he visited various churches of the Angles, and 
among others, JaiTow, where the abbot, Ceolfrid, 
had a discussion with him regarding Easter and 
the Tonsure, which resulted in the conversion of 
Adamnan from the British to the Catholic usage, 
and his earnest advocacy of the latter. Ceolfrid's 
account of the transaction is preserved by Bede 
{H. E, V. 21). It was probably about this time 
that Adamnan presented to Aldfrid the book deLocis 
Sanctis^ of which Bede makes such honourable 
mention {H. E. v. 15). On his return to Hy he 
laboured hard to bring the brotherhood round 
to the adoption of his views regarding the two 
gi*eat questions which then divided the British 
Churches, but without immediate success. In 
692 he visited Ireland on some business of im- 
I>ortance (Tighernach, 692); and this was pro- 
bably nis first endeavour to bring the Irish into 
conformity with the Saxon Church. How long 
he remained is uncertain, but he returned to 
Ireland in 697, and at his instance a synod of 
ecclesiaiitics and chieftains was held at BiiT, near 
the middle of Ireland, where an enactment was 
solemnly promulgated, exempting women from 
going to battle. The acts of this assembly are 
preserA'ed, entitled the "Law of Adamnan,'* 
without the assistance of which it would be very 
hard to understand what was meant by the 
Annals of Ulster, in recording, at the year 696, 
"Adomnanus ad Hibernisun pergit, et dedit 
Legem Innooentium populis." He appears to 
have remained for some years after this in Ire- 
land, furthering his social reform, and urging 
the adoption of the Catholic Easter and Tonsure. 


He was certainly there in 701, when he eon* 
vened a synod at Tare, to condemn a chieftaia 
who had been guilty of a gross outrage ; and 
Bede also states that he celebrated in Ireland hie 
last Easter, in the following summary which he 
has left us of the closing scenes of our saint's 
life : " Returning home [from Northumbria], he 
endeavoured to bring his own people that were 
in the isle of Hii, or that were aubject to that 
monastery, into the way of truth, which he had 
learned and embraced with all his heart : but ia 
this he could not prevail. He then sailed ortt 
into Ireland, to preach to its people, and by 
modestly declaring the correct time of Eastef, 
he reduced many of them, and almost all that 
were not under the dominion of the Society oi 
Hii, to the Catholic unity, and taught them te 
keep the legal time of Easter. Returning to hii 
inland, after having celebrated the canonical 
Easter [which fell this year on the 30th oi 
March] in Ireland, he most earnestlv advocated 
in his own monastery the Catholic ooserrance <^ 
the season of Easter, yet without being able U 
prevail ; and it so happened that he departed 
this life before the next year came round, thi 
Divine goodness so ordering it, that as he was f 
great lover of peace and unity, he should be takei 
away to everlasting life before he should b( 
obliged, on the return of the season of Easter, ti 
differ still more seriously with those who wonli 
not follow him in the truth ** {H. E, v. 15) 
He died in the year 704, aged seventy-seven, oi 
the 23rd of September, which is the day of hi 
commemoration both in the Irish and Scotd 

In Ireland he is the patron laini of th 
churches of Raphoe and Drumhome, in th 
county of Donegal ; of Errigal, Dnnbo, Bovevagh 
and Grellach, in the county of I>enry; and of Skreei 
in the county of Sligo. In Scotland he is spc 
cially venerated in the churches of Furvie am 
Aboyn, in Aberdeenshire ; of Forglen, in Banff 
of Tannadice, in Forfar; and in the islands c 
Inchkeith and Sanda ; among which his name ha 
assumed the various disguises of Eunen, Teunai 
The w nan, Ainan, Skeulan, and Arnold. 

Of his character for learning and the graces c 
the Christian ministry, we have the highest t« 
timony in the almost contemporary statemenl 
of Ceolfrid and Bede, the latter of whom stvlc 
him "vir bonus et sapiens, et sdentia script! 
rarum nobilissime instruct lis." Alcuin classi 
him among the "Praeclari patres Scotorum. 
His undoubted writings are (1) the work / 
Locia SandiSy of which Bede has transferred inl 
the body of his history large portions of tvi 
chapters {H, E. v. 16, 17). It was first printc 
in iull by Gretser, with Bede's extracts on alte. 
nate pages (Ingoldst. 1619, 4to.), and subs* 
quently, from a better manuscript, by Mabillc 
(Actt. SS. Ord, Bened. saec iii. pt. 2, p. 456 
The substance of the narrative was taken doii 
by the author, as he states, on wax tablets, fro 
the dictation of a Franco-Gallic bishop, calU 
Arculf, and when arranged, transfen*ed to met 
branes. (2) The Vita S, Colwnhae, in thr 
books, which was compiled by him between t] 
years 692 and 697, m>m earlier memoirs ai 
from the traditions of the island. The I^tini 
of this work is not so flowing or ft-ee from Cell 
cisms as the former one, but it is m much mo 
precious relic of antiquity, and is one of t 

■vt impBTtMil pirca of higiologj In iiiitciHS, 
It vu lint pi^lUhed bj Cuitini lAiUig. Ltctt. 
bt^ldii. ISiM), th*D bf HHslDghnra (Fhrilt- 
fi*m, Ftt. ISMX Colgan (7nu 7ii<i<ina(H'ya, 
Lono. IMTX BMrt (in Ae It. . laa. torn. ii. 
16MX Finkertoa (Viae Antiqaae, Lond. 1789), 
wd iutlf, frum thi ■alsgnph of DorbcDC, > 
■oak of Uj, who died ia 713. collnted with lii 
•ther muDKripU, bf Williim Hwt«s D.D. 
(/nut AnAiHOj; ami CeS. Soc. Dublin, 18ST, 4to.> 
Im Ih« Append, to tba Prifus ii ■ memoir of 
SLAdamaui <pp. il.-liriii.), ( popoUr lummKry 
*(i>hicfa iigiTen bj Ihe Comte da Uontalembart, 
in Lt$ Maita cfUonMirf (ilii. S), under tba 

(S> As Iii^ biihop, vhou -chonfa of Sath- 
maiyit-iK^tnillh u now koon u the parteb 
cbiTcb of Rifinogb<r, Deur lUphot, in the eMt 
prut of Ibe conntj DflJoDcgal. The place wu 
titmrlj importuica, u St. Brugich, ■ diiciple of 
Sl Patrick, who a in the calendu at Sept. I ; 
ud a St. Ciaraii. who died Nut, 1, 784, were 

ifirofrnt * fte^ li ali that ii recorded of bim, 
TKich ^ipaan in the IrUh Aaub, nodar thr jm 
ni {Ajl. 730; F. Hut. 725). [W. R.] 

ADANTUB ('Alarrat), one of Uanea' twain 
Catiplca. (retmi Sealiu, HM. Ua*. iTi.) 
hotiaa (CMtn Mm. L U) wriUa th* nana ai 
IdamantD*. In tba Oreek form of Anathema 
[tp. Cnlclier*! Palm ApaL L p. 546) be aeem* 
te be ollvd 'AI^L [E. B. a] 

ADAUTCUS, U. (1) An' Italliu of noble 
fuDilj, who had been iotiodant of tiui imperial 
UaMsry (Katiomaiu), maitjred under Discteiian 
i.a. 30J(Eu(b. fI.E. Tiii. tl; Rutin. lA. ; Dn- 
una, Otrm. iiir.) : burned l<^ether with a 
■bole towa in Pbrygia aod all it* Inhabitaati, 
•cnirlJng to Rnfinu, but Euahiui onlf mentiou 
kith £ictj eoBKCutiTelj without connectiug 
Uiem. (t) Anotfaer, (1» called AuDAtTTUg, it 
uu^ned bj tba Uirtvrolitgis to the lama per- 
Hmlum a* joined with St. Felii (Baed., lie, Jind 
baroB. Aug, 30); tba Dune being given to a 

(mliwith t« be a Cbriitian too, and wai there- 
■p«i (Jh befaiHled. [A. W. H.] 

ADDA (1) Son of Ida. king of NDHhambria, 
noveded hie brolbcr GUppa, u king of Bemicia 
in bJ9, aod nignad eight jean (Sim, Dun. Mon. 
B. H. 649; NenDioi, Md, 75> 

II) One of the compuiiou of S. Cedd in bli 
■wioB to the Middle Anglea in 653. He wu 
■a £a)(liihman bj birth, aod bmibar of (Jtta, 
•Um of Ualsh«>) (bada, H. E. iii. 21). [S.] 

ADDAS. ('Alkf. 'Alai,) one of the three 
£m diKiplci of Hanaa. Accnrdiog to Iha Acta 
•f Arrhrliu ho wu orlgEiullj lant to preach 
ha Bia^ar'i docti Inea in Scjihia, and wu >n(r- 
■udi coniniHioned with the othan to collect 
OcBtiao boeki (ArcM. it Man. Jii/mi. liii., lir.). 
•nbui|arntl]r tent aa ....... 




.TB*5l I 

»,(/*. ■ 

I«ii31> Cfril of Jen- 
ad^ Ct^ Ti 31. Kiraa hit aama at B»lda* 
(laltu) ; Photiua, Oamtra. Man. i. 14, ralli him 
Wu (B-Oat). a>d Petrui Siculu, Hid. Man. 
trL bhldai (Bovtafi)! but Ihlt i> appareDtlf 
*ll > cvofuiuB uritb the aa-onnt af Uanrt' lup- 
r Tanbinlhot [Ti:umuTUt.'iJ. 

futed b 

W 85, neDlioni certain wili- 

k, ir. 31, and which wu re^ 
bT Diodorui, biahopofTamut The Greek 
Dl Rbjuralion (ap. Cotelicr't Patra Apott. 
Tul. I. p. 544) meationi a work agaiiul MoMa 
and the Piopheta aa writteo bf Adu in conjano- 
tion with Adimulot [ADnciMTDS,] (Beinsobre, 
Hilt. d» Mank/.. I. pp. 63, 433; Baur, obi Ma' 
nicAaiKAi JMig. pp. 414, 466). [£. B. C] 

ADDI, a "comet "or geilth, wbo poateaaed 
land in the neighbourhood of Bererlaf. One of 
hig tervanli hnving recoyered from a lerere iU- 
neia in cootequence of tba prayera of 8. John af 
Bererlej, Adda bestowed the rilUge sf MortB 
Button on the church there (Bede, M. £, t. 5 ; 
Aran. Angl. ii. 126). [S.] 

AUKCKRDITAE, proparlT IladtctrdOat, tht 
name given by ■ Praedebtinalut'' (i. 79) to a 'tact 
who taid, according to Philaalriui ( ffoer. \1b% 
that Chrltt prucbed after hit death to all that 
were in Hadei, that tbej might repent and be 
tared. It wai a widalT apraad opinion in tbo 
earlj Church. [H.] 

ADELBERT [Aldebbbt]. 

ADELOPUAOI, the name giren bj 'Praa- 
deatinatut' (L 71) to a lect who, according to 
Philaatriua {Hof. 86), " did not ait their meat 
with men," alleging prophetic eiimpla (?£uk. 
■ilT. 17, 32); and beliered the Holj Spirit to be 
created. [H.] 

ADELPBIUS, a Gnoatic, conUmponrj with 
Plotiuua (Porpb. V. Plat. 16). Ha ii not men- 
tioned ly Chrittian writera. [U.} 

ADELPHIUH (Adelfini) (1) A member ol . 
the lint Council of Arlea 314; tuppoted ts 
bare been biibop of Lincoln. (Aug. Upp. ii. 
App. 1U95 A ; cf. Care, Hitt. Lilt. i. 350 ; 
Roulb, Sell. Sacr. It. 313.) 

(9) Ad Egfptiau bUhop and cooteuor, eiiled 
bj the Arinni (Athan. Ap. dt Puga, 7) lo the 
Thehaid (Ui. Ilul. Ar. 72> In 362 be wrilea 
aa Bishop of Onuphit ia the Delta {id. Tom. ad 
Ant. 615, 616). Athanaaiut addreued a letter 
lo him e 371, in which he oriefljr d-fend> the 

and (br anticipaiian) of Notoriaat and tulr- 
chiant (pp. 728-73i> [W.] 

ADELPHUe, chorepiKopaa to Adoliua, 
bithop of Arabitiui, in the middle of the bth 
century. He ligned ai proijr for hit diocetan at 
the conncil of Chalcedon, 451, (Labbe, ii, pp. M, 
332, 5'': ) Moschui, Spinl. Prat., c. 129, fol- 
lowed by Gaorga of Aleiandria in hio life of 
Chryioatom, antedatea the episcepat* of Adelpbnt 
bf half a century, and confuting him with the 
nmumed biihop uf Cncnsna bf whom Chrynoetom 

at Cucuaui. He relalea al»o a viiion of Chryao- 

hlt death. (TillemoDt, il. 623; Barouiui. Annai. 
■nn. 4117, J 29.) [E. V.] 

ADEODATUS (1) A natnral ton of Angua- 
tine, of great jiromiie (/V flwrfo Vila, 6) — 4n.-. mi 

wan bnnliied with hli father in 387, beint; at iha 
lima about fifteen iCcnfea. ii. 6). He appenn 

Btata I tta (fit. 6, 12, pnet ilia miDimui umnium, 



18), written in 386 and contributed largelj to 
his treatise De Magutro, written two jean later. 
He seems to hare died soon afterwards (Cito de 
terra abstulisti [Dens] ritam ejos, et secnrior 
earn recordor . . . ConSfess. ix. b). [W.] 

(8) Bishop of Rome ; succeeded Vitalianus in 
April, A.D. 672, and reigned abore four jears, 
dying in June, A.D. 676. (Clint, and Jafie, fr. 
Anast. B.) Anastasius records that he was a 
Roman monk, and that his father's name was 
Jovinianus; and gives as his character that he 
was most mild and benign, particularly in his 
hospitality towards men of every condition, and 
especially towards pilgrims. Two letters of his 
are extant, (1.) Dec. 23rd, A.D. 673, confirming 
the liberties of St. Peter's monastery at Canter- 
bury, at the request of Abbot Hadrian (Mansi, 
zi. p. 103); (2.) to the Qallican bishops, giving 
privileges to St. Martin's of Tours (M. loc. cit. 
xi. 103> [G. H. M.] 

ADIMANTUS (^kZtituunot\ one of Manes' 
twelve disciples. Photius (^Contra Man. i. 14) 
and Petrus Siculus (^Hist Man., xvi. *AS^ftatrro5), 
in their list of the twelve, after mentioning his 
name, add that he was sent as a missionary into 
various regions ; but he seems to have met with 
especial success in Northern Africa, where he 
was still held in the highest veneration in Augus- 
tine's time, and oonsidei'ed an authority second 
osly to Manes himself (Augustine, Contra Adim, 
12. 2 ; Contra Faust. L 2). He wrote a book, appa- 
rently in Latin, in which he endeavoured by a 
series of examples to prove a contradiction be- 
tween the Old Testament and the New, taking 
them chiefly from the Pentateuch, but also a few 
from the Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophets. 
In the Gi-eek form of abjuration (ap. Cotelier's 
Patres Apost.y vol. i. p. 544,) it is ascribed to 
Adas as well as Adimantus. Augustine answered 
most of these objections in his treatise Contra 
Adimantwn; but he admits elsewhere (Contra 
Advers. Legis et Prophet, ii. 42) that be had been 
obliged, through want of leisure, to leave a few 
unexamined, which he hoped at some future time 
to take up and refute (a)mpare also Serm. de 
Script, xii.). He mentions {Contra Adv. Leg. 
1. c.) that Adimantus' praenomen was Addas, 
' Adimanti, qui praenomine Addas dictus est ; " 
this is the reading in the Benedictine edit, from 
the older MSS., — the common edition5 read '^ pro- 
prio nomine," which would have implied a confu- 
sion between the names of two of the mo»t cele- 
brated of Manes' disciples — a. charge brought 
against this father by Beausobre {Hist de Manich. 
L 432). [E. B. C] 

ADOLIA, a wealthy matron of Antioch, an 
old friend and correspondent of Chrysostom. 
Her property was the cause of much anxiety and 
family discomfort, which Chrysostom earnestly 
exhorted her to free herself from by distributing 
her wealth to the poor. His counsels do not 
appear to have found a ready response, and his 
letters manifest considerable dissatisfaction. One 
cause of complaint was Adolia's want of readi- 
ness to visit her spiritual guide in his place of 
exile. " Cucusus," he reminded her, *' was but 
a short distance from Antioch. The season 
was favourable. It was neither too hot nor 
too oold. Old and sickly as he was, were 
he not a prisoner, he would come and see 
her.** Her plea of severe sickness was only half 


believed. That of the treachery of friends and 
business engagementa only strengthened hia 
arguments for her renunciation of her property. 
'*At any rate she might write to faim mora 
frequently. He had sent six letters, and only 
received two. Want of means of transmissioB 
might be some excuse. But when Libanius cama 
from Antioch, whom everybody knew, why did 
she not send a letter by him ? Perhaps he started 
without her hearing or his intention. He could 
only say that he was always inquiring if anv ona 
was going near Antioch, who coold take a letter 
to her." Tillemont is inclined to identify her 
with the Adolia mentioned by Palladins {Hist, 
Laus.) as having served God virtuously to tha 
best of her ability, but not so excellently ss her 
sister Ousia, whom he had seen in the monastery 
of Hesyca, tA S\a c^iivorifrmv, (Chrysost. Epiti, 
xxxii., lii., Ivii., cxxxiii., clxxix., ccxxxi.) [£. V.] 

ADOPTIONISTS {Adoptiani, Adoptwiy^ tha 
followers of a Christological heresy in the age of 
Charles the Great, in Spain and Gaul, who held 
that Jesus Christ, as to his human nature, was 
the Son of God only by adoption or by name. 

I. History. — ^The history of this sect is con- 
fined to the West, while all the older Christo- 
logical controversies took place mainly in Um 
East. It originated in that part of Spain which 
was under the rule of the Saracens, when 
the Catholics had to defend the eternal and 
essential sonship of Christ against the objectiom 
both of the Arians and the Mahometans. Th< 
Council of Toledo, 675, in the preface to thi 
Confessio Fidei, sUtes: ««Hic etiam Filius Da 
natwra est Filius, non adnptiane" But about 
a century afterwards EUpandus, the agec 
Archbishop of Toledo, and primate of SjmUi 
under the Mahometan dominion, endearourKl ti 
modify the orthodox doctrine, by drawing i 
distinction between a natural and an adoptet 
sonship of Christ, and by ascribing the former t 
his divine, the latter to his human nature. H< 
did this, perhaps (as Neander suggests), witl 
the hope of avoiding the objections of Maho 
metans. Having little confidence in his owi 
opinion, he consulted Felix, bishop of Urge 
or [Jrgella in Catalonia, in that part of Spaii 
which, since 778, was incorporated with th 
dominion of Charles the Great. Felix was mor 
learned and clear-headed than Elipandus, an 
esteemed, even by his antagonist Alcuin, fo 
his ability and piety. Neander (iii. 317) n 
gards him as the originator of Adoptionism ; t 
all events, he reduced it to a formal statemen' 
Confirmed by his friend, Elipandus taught tk 
new doctrine with all the zial of a young ooi 
vert, although he was already eighty years < 
age, and taking advantage of his influential pos 
tion, he attacked the orthodox with overbearin 
violence. He found many friends, but ah 
vigorous opponents; among whom Etheriu 
Bishop of Osma or Othma (formerly his pupil 
and Beatus, a presbyter and abbot, took the lei 
in the defence of the old and the exposure of tl 

• The Oeimans, aOer the mediaeval Latin AdapHmi 
say AdoptiKMT, Adflptvanistmm, as they say CrtatiaMi 
SubmdinatUner, ete. But in English, wnere we hs 
the nouns adoption, creation, subordination, from t 
corresponding Latin nouns, the spellUig ot tlMse derii 
tive theological terms with an o insteatl of an a seems 
be more natural, and Is universally accepted In the ci 
of MulMrdmationut and subordinattomtm. 



Chrinology. Elipandiu, who was m man of 
Tiol«nt temper, and jealous of his dignity, charged 
kk opponents with confounding the natures of 
Clirist, like wine and water, and with scandalous 
imiiioraUtj (he calls Beatus a " disciple of Anti- 
christ, camis imrounditia foetidus et ab altario 
Dd txtraneus "), and pronounced the anathema 
on them. Pope Hadrian being informed of these 
troubles, issued a letter in 785 to the orthodox 
bishops of Spain, warning them against the new 
doctrine as rank Nestorianism. But the letter 
bad no effect ; and, generallj, the papal author- 
itr plaja a subordinnte r61e in this whole con- 
trorrrsT. The Saracen government, indifferent 
to the theological disputes of its Christian sub- 
jects, did not interfere. But when the Adop- 
tiooist heresy, through the influence of Felix, 
^iread in the French portion of Spain, and even 
beyond the Pyrenees into Septi mania, creating 
s considerable commotion among the clergy, the 
Christian Emperor Charles called a Synod to 
Kcgensbnrg (Ratisbon) in Bararia, in 792, and 
isTited the Bishop of Urgel to appear, that his 
euc might be properly investigated. The Synod 
caodemned Adoptionism as a renewal of the 
Keatorian heresy ; and Felix publicly and 
idemnly recanted before the Synod, and also 
before rope Hadrian, to whom he was sent. 
Bat on his return to Spain he was so much re- 
proached for his weakness, that, regardless of 
lis solemn oath, he yielded to the entreaties of 
bis friends and reaffirmed his former opinions. 
Charles, who did not wish to alienate the Spanish 
portion of hia kingdom, and to drive it into the 
protectioB of the neighbouring Saracens, directed 
Alcoia. who in the mean time had come to France 
from England, to send a mild warning and re- 
futation of Adoptionism to Felix. When this 
proved fmitleas, and when the Spanish bishops, 
■nder the lead of Elipandus, appealed to the 
jnstiee of the emperor, and demanded the restora- 
tion of Felix to his bishopric, he called a new 
council at Frankfort on the Main in 794, which 
was att«ided by three hundred bishops. As 
neither Felix nor any of the Adoptionist bishops 
appeared in person, the council, under the lead 
of Alcuin, confirmed the decree of condemnation 
passed at Ratisbon. Subsequently Felix wrote 
SB spotogT. which was answered and refuted by 
▲Icuin. Elipandus reproached Atcuin for having 
30.000 slaves (probably belonging to the convent 
ef Tours), and for being proud of his wealth. 
Charles sent Archbishop Leidrad of Lyons and 
other kiahopa to the Spanish portion of his king- 
dom, who sacoeeded, in two visits, in converting 
the heretics (according to Alcuin 20,000). About 
that tiate a council at Rome, under Leo III., pro- 
aocnoed, on very imperfect information, a fresh 
lasthtma, erroneoiisly charging the Adoptionists 
that tiiey denied to the Saviour any other than 
s BUBCupative Godhead (Hardouin, iv. 9*28). 
Febx himself appeared, 799, at a Synod in Aix- 
is-Chi^ielle, and after a debate of six days with 
AiraiB. he recanted his Adoptionism a second 
Ume. He confessed to be convinced by some 
psiaages, not of the Scriptures, but of the fathers 
(npcoaily Cyril of Alexandria, Leo I., and Gre- 
gory LX which he had not known before, con- 
teaed Nestorina, and exhorted his clergy and 
pvople to fellow the true faith (Hard. iv. 929- 
S^U; Alcuin, Kf>p. 92, 176; and the C*m*€»M 
Adk FdkiM in Maasi, xiii. 1035, sq.). He spent 



the rest of his life under the supervision of the 
Archbishop of Lyon^ and died 818 (not 816, as 
Neander has it). He lefl, however, a paper in 
which the doctrine of Adoptionism is clearly 
stated in the form of question and answer ; and 
Agobard, the successor of Leidrad, felt it his duty 
to refute it {Adt, Dogma Felicia Epiac, UrgeUenaia^ 
iibri IIL, Opera Agcb. ed. Balnxe, Psr. 1666, 
t. i.). Elipandus, under the protection of the 
government of the Moors, continued openly true 
to his heretical conviction. But Adoptionism 
lost its vitality with its champions, and passed 
away during the 9th century. Slight traces of 
it are found occasionally during the middle ages. 
Duns Scotus (1300) and Darandus a S. Porciano 
(1320), admit the term Fiivia adoptivua in a 
qualified sense. (See Welch, ffiat. Adopt, p. 253 ; 
Gieseler, Church Histonj, 4th Germ. ed. vol. ii. 
part i. p. 117, note 13.) The defeat of Adop- 
tionism was a check upon the dyophysitic and 
dyotheletic feature in the Chalcedon C!hnstology, 
and put off indefinitely the development of the 
human side in Christ's Person. (Comp. Domer, 
ii. p. 311.) In more recent times the Jesuit 
Vasquex, the Lutheran divines G. Calixtns and 
Walch, have defended the Adoptionists as essen- 
tially orthodox (Gieseler, 1. c). 

II. Doctrine, — The doctrine nf Adoptionism ia 
closely allied in spirit to the Nestorian Christ- 
ology ; but it concerns not so much the constitu- 
tion of (Christ's person, as simply the relation of 
his humanity to the Fatherhood of QoA, The 
Adoptionists were no doubt sincere in admitting 
at the outset the unity of Christ's person, the 
communication of properties between the two 
natures, and the term Theotokoa (though in a 
qualified sense) as applied to the Virgin Mary. 
Yet their view implies an abstract separation of 
the eternal Son of God and the man Jesus of 
Nazareth, and results in the assertion of two 
distinct Sons of God. It emphasized the dyo- 
physitism and dyotheletism of the orthodox 
Christology, and ran it out into a personal dual- 
ism, inasmuch as sonship is an attribute of 
personality, not of nature. The Adoptionists 
appealed, without good reason, to Ambrose, 
Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, and Isidore of Seville. 
Sometimes the term adoptio is indeed applied to 
the Incarnation by earlier writers, and in the 
Spanish liturgy (the Officium Mozarabictnn\ but 
rather in the sense of aaaumptio or kydXti^^it, 
i. e. the elevation of the human nature, through 
Christ-, into union with the Godhead ; and in a 
passage of Hilary (De Trinit, ii. 29) there is 
a dispute between two readings — '* camis humi- 
litas adoptatur" and " adoratur " (Alcuin)— al- 
though the former alone is consistent with the 
context, and ^^ adoptatur ** is used in a more 
general sense for asa»tmitur (so Agobard). They 
might, with better reason, have quoted Theodore 
of Mopsnestia as their predecessor, but they were 
probably ignorant of his writings and doctrine 
of the vAs 9fT<(f, which is pretty much the 
same as their pitta Dei adoptivua. (See Neander, 
Kirchengrachichte, iii. p. 318, f.) The funda- 
mental point in Adoptionism is the distinction 
of a double Sonship in Christ, — one by nature 
and one by grace, one by generation and one by 
adoption, one by essence and one by title, one 
which is metaphysical and another which is 
brought about by an act of the divine will and 
choice. The idea of sonship is made to depend 



on the nature, not on the person ; and as Christ 
has two natures, there must be in him two cor- 
responding Sonships. According to his divine 
nature Christ is really and essentially the Son 
of God (secHttdum naturam or gettere), begotten 
from eternity ; but according to his human 
nature he is the Son of God only nominally 
{nuncupative) by adoption, or by divine grace 
Begotten Son of God {UhigenU'ts^ fiovoytirfis, 
iecundum adoptionem, or gratiay electione, oo- 
ImUate, beneplacito). By nature he is the Only 
(John i. 14), by adoption and grace he is the First 
begotten {Pntnogenitu% vpwriroicoi iw voAAoif 
A8<A^rs, Rom. viii. 29 ; comp. CoJ. i. 15). Thus 
Epist, Episc. Hisp, ad Episc. Qalliaey in Alcuin's 
Opera^ ed. Froben ii. 568 : ^* Nos confitemur et 
credimus, Deum Dei (ilium ante omnia tempora 
sine initio ex Patre genitum — non adoptione sed 
genere, neque gratia sed natura — pro salute rero 
humani generis, in fine temporis ex ilia intima 

et inefTabili Patris substantia egrediens 

secundum traditionem Patrum confitemur et 
credimus, eum &ctum ex muliere, factum sub 
lege, non genere esse filium Dei sed adoptione, 
neque natura sed gratia." The Adoptionists 
quoted in their favour mainly John xiv. 28 ; 
Luke i. 80, xviii. 19 ; Mark xiii. 32 ; John i. 14, 
z. 35 ; Rom. viii. 29 ; 1 Cor. xi. 3 ; 1 John iii. 
2; Dent, xviii. 15 ; Ps. ii. 8, xxii. 23, and other 
passages from the 0. T., which they referred to 
the FUiua primogenitus et adoptivua ; while Ps. 
Ix. 4 (ex uiero ante Lucifentm genui te) , xliv. 2 ; 
Is. xlv. 23 ; Prov. viii. 25, were understood to 
apply to the Ftiitu unigenitua. None of these 
passages, which might as well be quoted in 
favour of Arianism, bear them out in their 
peculiarity. Christ is nowhere called the adopted 
Son of God. Felix inferred from the adoption of 
the adopted children of God, that they must 
have an adoptive head. He made use of the 
illustration, that as a son cannot have literally 
two fathers, but may have one by birth and the 
other by adoption, so Christ, according to his 
humanity, cannot be the Son of David and the 
Son of Uod in one and the same sense, but he 
may be the one by nature and the other by 
adoption. (Alcuin, Contra Felicem^ i. 12, and 
iii. 1.) It is not clear whether he dated the 
adopted Sonship of Christ from his exaltation 
(Domer, ii. 319), or from his baptism (Walch), 
or already from his birth (Neander). He speaks 
of a double birth of Christ, compares the baptism 
of Christ with the baptism or regeneration of 
believers, and connects both with the spiritualis 
generatio per adoptionem (1. c. ii. 15) ; but, on 
the other hand, he seems to trace the union of 
the human nature to the divine to the womb 
of the Virgin (1. c. v. 1). The Adoptionists, as 
already remarked, thought themselves in har- 
mony with the Christology of Chalcedon, and 
professed faith in one divine person in two full 
and perfect n^itures — (" in una personsi^ duabus 
qnoque naturis plenis atque perfectis," Alcuin, 
Opp, ii. 5C7); they only wished to bring out 
their views of a double Sonship, as a legitimate 
consequence of the doctrine of two natures. 

The champions of orthodoxy, among whom 
Alcuin, the teacher and friend of Charles the 
Great, was the most learned and able — next to 
him Paulinus of Aquileja and Agobard of Lyons, 
—unanimously viewed Adoptionism as a revival 
or modification of the Nestorian heresy, which 


was condemned by the third Oecnmenicd Oonndl 
(431). (Alcuin, Contra Felicem, L i. c 11 :— 
** Sicut Nestoriana impietas in dnas ChriKtom 
dividit personas propter duas natnras; ita ef 
vestra indocta temeritas in duos eum dividit 
filioa, unum proprium, alterum adoptivum. Si 
vero Christus est proprius Filing Disi Patris el 
adoptivus, ergo est alter et alter," etc Lib. ir. 6, 
5 : ** Nonne duo sunt, qui rerua eat Deoa, et qoi 
nuncupativus Dens ? Nonne etiam et duo sunt 
qui adoptivus est Filiua, et ille, qui verus est 
Filius ?*^) Starting from the fact of m real in^ 
carnation, the orthodox party insisted that ii 
was the eternal, only begotten, Son of God wh< 
assumed human nature from the womb of tlK 
Virgin, and united it with his divine person 
remaining the proper Son of God notwithstand 
ing this change, (fbid. ii. 12: — **Nec in ilh 
assumptione alius est Deus, alius homo, vel alio; 
Filius Dei, et alius Filius Virginis : sed idem ea 
Filius Dei, qui et Filius Virginis; ut ait una 
Filius etiam proprius et perfectus in duabn 
naturis Dei et hominis.'') The learned Walcl 
defends the orthodoxy of the Adoptionists, sine 
they did not say that Christ, in his twofold Son 
ship, was alius et alius, iWos vol &XAot (whid 
is the Nestorian view), but that he was So: 
aliter et aliter, ik\us leal AkKtts {KetzerMstoru 
vol. ix. pp. 881, 904). Baur (ii. p. 152) like 
wise justifies Adoptionism, as a legitimate in 
ference from the Chalcedonian dogma, but o 
the assumption that this dogma itself includi 
the Nestorian dualism in tht doctrine of tw 
natures. Neander, Domer, and Niedner, conced 
the affinity of Adoptionism with Nestorianisn 
but affirm, at the same time, the difierenoe an 
the new features in Adoptionism (see ettpeciall 
Domer, ii. p. 309, sq.). — ^The radical fault of th 
heresy is, that it shifts the whole idea of Sonshi 
from the person to the nature. Christ is tl 
Son of God as to his person, not as to his natur 
The two natures do not form two sons, sin< 
they are inseparably united in the one Chris 
The eternal Son of God did not in the act 
Incarnation assume a human personality, bi 
human nature. There is therefore no room * 
all for an adoptive Sonship. Christ is, in h 
person from eternity, by nature what Christiai 
become by grace and regeneration. The Bib 
nowhere calls Christ the adopted Son of God. 

III. Sources. — 1. The writings of the Adoptio 
ists : a letter of Elipandus, Ad Fideiem Abbatei 
a. 785, and one to Alcuin ; two letters of t 
Spanish bishops,— one to Charles the Great, t 
other to the Gallican bishops; Felicis lAbeR 
contra Alcuinum ; the Confemio Fidei /Win 
fragments of a posthumous bookefFelix addre« 
Ad Ludovicum Pium Imp. 2. The orthodox si 
is represented in Beati et Etherii adv. Elipandi 
lihri II. ; Alcuin, Seven Books against Fei 
Four Books against Elipandus, and several lettei 
Seven Books of Paulinus, Bishop of Aquileja, A* 
Felicem Orgeletanum ; Agobard of Lyons, Ai 
Dogma Felicis Episc. UrgeUensis; a letter 
Charlemagne (792) to Elipandus and the bish< 
of Spain ; the acts of the Synods of Narbor 
(788), Ratisbon (792), Francfort (794), s 
Aix-la-Chapelle (799); aU in Harduin T 
Mansi XIII. ; Gallandi XIII. ; and in the Op 
Alcuiniy ed. Froben, Ratisb. 1777, torn. i. and 
A minute and carefully accurate history of 1 
controversy is given by Chr. G. F. Walch« £ 


Car*) Aii pHa i m -t m , <]ottiD|. 1T95, ai In hbl Mntar;, b 
Xtt'frijtK U cM*, roL ix. eST, aqq. Camp. ■!•« mgdcni bn 
Xauder, KirdirngadacAte, Tol. iil. pp. 313^39 ; , wbo, whrti 
OiHiler, Tol. IL P. 1, p. Ill, iqq. ; Bmr, Sit , 433), hid no haiUKon Id pmaonnclng thfir 
tiriMit^lit Z*»n (OH dir Dnieiniglnit und Identity, aftinrsnli (.InnaJM i. 9S) chinged h!i 
MtnKliKtrdmig Octla, Tiibinpn, IS42, Tol, II. mv, ind ii followtd bf Stilling (/»c. atat. 
pp. ISS-ISS ; Dorner, Entncltbngt-GttchicfiU p. 2>I k^.) igiinit tbe Bcnedictloi rdilun of 
drr Lthrt BM dtr Pnw* Olridf, tecond ed. th* £iKur^ o/ Lcmgvfdee, i. 666, B«llle^ knd 
BfrliB, IS53, pp. 306-330; Nisdner, Ldtrhudi m«t of tfa« modcTDi. Aanming then thit 
iir cXHUl. K. a^ Berlin, 1866. pp. 424-4371 Aegidiu^ tha ^icod of St. deurini, ii Dot 
J. C. RDbcrtWD, Hidory <f U* CkrMim Onrdt idaatlcal with tht p«non wbom w* knoar u 
tnm .^90 to 1133 (Lond. 1856), p. 154, aqq. S« St. GiIm, ind prnniting that much coDfniioD u 
ut. £urA!rDD> ud FeLIX. [P. S.] to tbc chronoli^j hu iriKn rrom the iittempta 

ADBIANUS, u .ll^«l Biihop of St. An- I °A"°tf™h.™on'^ '« 'Ct-uI/o *th^ m^ 
inmx, DurtTnd br tbs Dsnii A.D. 874 (Bri~ , "^ , , , , ,. ',' . j ' . , o..,., - 

t^Ai.^. luJh 4> [A. w. HO '"';"; J,'T ""!■""?■ ;; ?' ?"";:« ■"" 

'^ *- -' much InbonouB reKsrch — tbat AcEidlu* wii* 

ADRIAMUa. [HADKUNin.] born In Giwcn, prrhap* af noble pHrentage, 


AEDE8IUS 01 HEDESIU8, M., « nobu'' 
Lrcian, brotber of Apphiuni,aitad(nt It Alu- ^ __ _ 

t^dri., wbu« b. WM martyred bj droning {"^"^ ;;;^;'; ft,r"mncrjdin"g"tharrei^™uii 
^t A.B. 30« (En«,b. C, Hart. PaU^d. .. U ; the «int'. companion In hi. wlltnde, ... id.n- 
Sriuc **. in A—muu, Art. Jforl. ,L 195, j,„i .jn, Ver^emiu, bUhop of ATignon, oho 
•I-)- [A.W. H.] Iflooriihed about IM; he holdi that Aegidiu- 

AEDEfiltTB and FHOMASTIUS. V/a-v- liv«d a hermifi lift otar tht Guerfon, a tribn- 
aiTTiC*.} { t"7 of the Rhone, till 670 or 671, when ha 

AF.D8Wl)orAED8HIN(wriHeoab»Adel-|p'.'"'"*?' ^ ' '"" ^"^ iolilnde In a f-.r«t, 
phi«,Aiginlph«),.tat«linthelifeorS.Foil-|T''"" '". "V *^^"% ^^",""8 ^''"r- 
C.»t»i».b«nbr<«b.r<.fBr.ndann.,Bp.andll:'- ^J"'" '?' PT?'L^'^'"> * ^f" 

Lt^^7™™tdV"^irnnr'r:i •"' -- An"r»*™z ::/^^^^^^^^ 

wf™bi^™".t"fh.'^°±"t:^".nrti:;" , ^^l^ •" '^'T. ;« Chi,d,Urt. kj-g of 7...,. a. 
■other, b«>.u« .h« hid BurrW their ftthar I"*"*',";, '*'.'' ^•f"'' '•>""'!'"■ ''"■: '"PP^V 
•ilhont hi. con«nt. Af»er . tln,^ h. beouar ! ^'.l""™"',* T"^" *- '''■"' P"""*! '" *■" '^"' 
r™«il«l U them. HU death wa. in th, firat I ^^J". ^'"V T '.".'' """"'"'. ""^ Ik ""■"i 
Ulf of Um. 7Ui antOTY (Act. SS. Beig, iiL 16, i f "f ^" ""^"8* *" '^^e";!, •''*« the Mint 
,oi ' ' *rc m lodgwl- He mpported h» hf( on tha milk o( 

'■ ^^ "•■' Ihi. hind, and the frniU and herba of the foiwit, 

AEINUS CA'fnv), Ep<[A. Hat. ISSc, 169* ipeoding all h: 

pm.] IT6b; aMfoi Hippo). Jiaer. 
Arm* Tert. IW. 8; Ireo. T [a. q.]; iTnoi lb. 
I-U>. A aoapidou KonL [VALi:tmii[iB.J [H.] 
AEUAN, Biahop of Seuncs, or TrajinO- 
roui. in laanria. pretent at the CouDCil of Cbal- 
e*4>4. «51, aod ligned lU acta. (Labbe, Conoi' 

r. 6>4, kc) Hit aubdtacon Piuliu aigoi the 

■■ [t-v.] 

Uk J(4m> fur him. (/I. 14«3.) 

e right of the aaint knealiug in pra<rar, 

tiillea, A'a^J. St. Qllee), a 
oateHor, ■ ■aint of shorn in proportion to I 
■i-lo-iprcul cclfbritj and pi^ularitf there 
uiibUtIt little Iraitworthj informatiaD. All fo 
■ntora agreo is throwing diicrtdit upon the " 
tela from which tha lift af the aalnt. ai It 1l 
fopuLiilT liren. baa been compoKd. (BaillFl, 
tin At ^iaimlt. Septetnbre. cal. r.; Stliling io 
JH. .^'. Ji«ll. Sept. i. 389.) The following 
■ri^ara to be the odIj incontHUble point of 
kUtoij, tbat Ae^diqa, an abbat in l^n^uedoc, 
•u •rat bf hii biahup. St. i:aeHHiu, In 6U, to 
Papa iijiDmachiu at Konw, on a request about 
IM nsilja>tineDt of the prorlncea of Soathcrn 
Gall (Labbo, Ow>^, IT. p. 1310> Theqneitloo 
•^Mr Ihii perHn la identic^ with S. Aegidiiu, 
■fctH AaU ■ legeod fiifi In the raigo of Charlea 
Bulel {.ee Ibe qootation fiTHn tha Antwerp 
hrriarr in JMI. p. 2dl>. though the original 
ttU, writUB DDl Utar l^an tb* »tb or lUU 

ordered hin 


ut be re> 

him from 

hi< aolilad 

Bnt aocord 

ng to th* 

KiinmoDtr-recelTed legend. 

ba obeyed 
riiil to th 

ummon^ and >n*r a Thort 
nned about 673 (Stilting, 

p. 298) to 

i. •olitade, and fuunded the monai- 

terj which 

after hio d 

eath bor* hi. name. Pope 

Hauadiot It 

b aaid to 

have granted him a priri- 

lege of ei 

mption, a 

which the 

doon of th* church were formed 

If we 

m,iy belicT. the Adi ha 

foretold th 


Suraceni, which mat 

hare taken place about 

730, when 


a our lupposiliun th* wlot 

would be 

f ng*. At thi> point we 

Biu.I tnppiHe lliat h 

s inlerriew with Cbarlaa 

M;irtel at 

Orle-n< to 

ok jdnce, AegiJius baring 

ex-iiped fro 

m the Sar 

which »a> 

.ubjecl t 

"h^ Fra°nka.* 'Thl.°«.u^ 

Ir adopted by S3. Bau<lel>ua and 

Komolna o 


Tha Jrf. carry him back 

Miery, wh 

ha died be 

r* the wcond lrrui>liou of the Sara- 

cana In 725 


Imagine tbat ho attained 



m Ttrj txtreme old ago. Thif view, which is 
consuUnt and presents no insaperable difficult/, 
seems preferable to that which wonld reject the 
latter part of the Acta as spurious, and refer 
the foundation of the monastery to the posthu- 
mous fame of sanctity and miraculous power 
which attracted pilgrims to the hermit's resting- 
place. On the previous connection of the Uoths 
with this site see citations from Godfrey of 
ViUrbo and Otto of Frisingen in Caters Histoire 
des domtes de Toulouse, pp. 4, 5. 

Some {e,g, Mabillon, Annal, i. 99, Baillet, 
tii supra) hare argued from the style of the 
existing abbatial buildings against the antiquity 
of the foundation as claimed abore. But this 
argument would be equally valid against the 
historical mention of the abbey as one of those 
included in the list presented in 817 to the 
Council of Aachen {QaU, ChrixU vi. 481). Copies 
of bulls and letters issued by Popes John VIII. 
Martinus I., Adrian III., Stephen V., and Ser- 
gius III., between the years 879-910, confirming 
the independence of the Abbey of St. Gilles from 
the bishops of Nismes, are to be seen in Menard, 
Jfistoire de NismeSf t. i. Preuves, pp. 11-16. 
This author (t. vii. 618-621), writing in 1758, 
gives a succinct history of the abbey and town of 
St. Gilles, with full references to authorities. 
Pilgrims were attracted, he says, in great num- 
bers to the saint's tomb from all parts of 
Christendom, and the town owes its origin to 
the necessity for their accommodation on the 
spot. It soon came into the hands of the counts 
of Toulouse. He exposes the common error 
which asserts that it became an independent 
county and the capital of Lower Languedoc. 
The counts of Toulouse were however fre- 
quently called counts of St. Gilles, fi*ora the 
accession of Raymond IV., Count of Rovergue, 
Nismes, and Narbonne, who cherished a special 
devotion for the saint (cf.Catel, Bisi. des ConUes de 
Touiousej p. 131), and is commonly distinguished 
from other counts of his name as ** Raymond de 
St. Gilles." The situation of the town on a 
small arm of the Rhone, which furnished it with 
an accessible and safe harbour, may have stimu- 
lated the devotion which during the 11th and 
12th centuries is remarked by manv writers. 
Among these the Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, 
who travelled in Europe in 1160, noticed the 
crowds of foreigners who used to flock to St. 
Gilles from the most distant countries. Others 
remark the fair held on September 1, which, 
sajTs M^ard, though it still lasts, is now far 
less frequented. To this date we may probably 
refer the great extension of the cuitns of St. 
Giles, especially in England and Scotland ; for 
instance, we may suppose that pilgrims from 
Oxford on their return built the church in the 
north suburb of their city, and instituted the 
annual fair, which to this day bears the name of 
their patron, while London, Edinburgh,^ and most 
of the other principal British cities, possess 11th 
or 12th century churches under this dedication. 

It is beyond the scope of the present article to 
give the subsequent history of the abbey and 
town of St. Gilles. The former, a Benedictine 

k SL Giles was acconnted tbe tutelar Mint of Edin- 
burgh. Pre>ton of Gorton brought an arai-boue to tbe 
dty, which was encased in a silver casket. For an 
accoQDt of tbe church at Edinburgh under Uiis saint's 
Invocalion tee JUUorum Sanita, li. 3aa-3«Sw 


foundation, was secnlarixed by Pope Fan] III. it 
1538 ; and the Upper Church was demolished in 
part by the Due de Rohan, wlien the Huguenots 
no longer found it tenable as a fort, in 1562. 
A good descrifjtion of the present atat* of this 
Upper Church, begun in 1116 by Alphoaso, ton 
of Count Raymond IV., originally 290 feet in 
length by 88^ feet in breadth, and in ita in* 
tegrity '^prolmbly the grandtet church in the 
South of France," may be seen in Murray's 
Handbook to France, p. 520, edit. 1869, where it 
is stated that in the Lower Church, which is 
stll complete, and adjoins the church already 
mentioned, the central part over the tomb of St. 
Giles is of earlier date than the rest, perhaps a 
relic of the church consecrated by Urban II. in 
1096. The celebrated spiral staircase, called Z« 
vis de St. QUUis, is the only relic of the priory, 
and itself narrowly escaped destruction at the 
Revolution. The town, which in Menard's time 
contained only 3500 inhabitants, has revived, 
and now numbers 6804. 

Of such personal characteristics as may b« 
gathered from the Acta of this saint, perhaps 
the most remarkable is his intense — as we 
should say — ^morbid humility, which withdrew 
him from the notice of his countrymen, and the 
open exercise of practical virtues, to a desert, 
and led him to refuse treatment for an acci- 
dental lameness that he might be able to prac- 
tise more rigid self-mortification. From this 
anecdote he has been esteemed the patron of 
cripples. St. Giles' Cripplegate, built about 
1090 (Newcourt, Reperiorium, i. 355) is dedi- 
cated to him, and it has often been noticed that 
churches built under his patronage are generally 
at the entrance of towns, e. g, St. Giles'-in-the- 
Fields, London. *' Every county in England, 
except Westmoreland and Cumberland, has 
churches named in his honour, amounting in 
all to 146, and Warrington in Devon is named 
after SS. Martin and Giles conjointly." Co/eii- 
dar of the Anglican Church (Parker), p. 106. 
A brotherhood of St. Mary and St. Giles is men- 
tioned by Newcourt, in connection with the 
church at Cripplegate. Matilda, Queen of 
Henry I. founded a hospital of St. Giles outside 
the city walls of London for lepers. St. Giles' 
church in Rome used to be much frequented by 
women before childbirth. (^Mirabilia Romae^ 
p. 38, edit. 1618.) Other monasteries and 
churches, dedicated to St. Giles, are at Li^ge, St. 
Hubert in the Ardennes, Sentiges in Hungary, 
St. Quintin in Picardy, Bamberg, Brunswick, 
Munster, and Nuremberg. See Suiting, pp. 285- 

Modem ingenuity has attributed the 8e1ecti<m 
of extra-mural and secluded spots by the founders 
of these churches to a recognition and imita- 
tion of the saint's love of privacy (J. J. Moore's 
Historical Handbook for Oxford, p. 201). Why 
churches should have been so situated for tha 
benefit of cripples is certainly not apparent. If 
it was ** in order to afford poor and lame travel- 
lers a ready opportunity of resorting to them, 
on their entering from the country " (Blunt, 
Annotated Prai/er Book, preface, p. 55), the end 
tn view must have been very partially secured. 

In art St. Giles b generallv represented as sn 
aged man, with a long white i)eard ; a hind, some* 
times having its neck pierced with an arrow, 
rests its head or forefeet in his lap, or crouches at 


kit ftct. ** Ib pictures hU habit u qsimIIt white, 
WaiiiM ftoch {Mctoret date snbsequentlj to the 
fniod whca the abbej of St. Giles beoune the 
p to ft e it y of the reformed BeDedictines, who had 
ad«pcad the white habit. Representations of St. 
Giles are seldom met with in Italy, but rerr 
freqiMntlj in early French and German art. 
(Un. Jameson's Legends of the Monasttc Orders^ 
n. 34.) A drawing of the saint after Albert 
barer, fiTcn in the same work, p. 201, repre- 
snta him as unbearded (see also the wotNlcut 
Crom painted glass in Parker's Calendar^ &c 
p. \06\ and wiUi his hand pierced by an arrow. 

Giles is a common Christian name; nowhere 
■on ao than in Belgium. Its frequency* as a 
surname, both in France and England, may be 
Men by reference to modem biographical die- 

It is now generally allowed that it was another 
ifgidius who wrote some medical treatiiies in 
latin Terse (Trithemius, De Viri$ flluttr. lib. 2, 
an. 22 ; Hoffmann, Lexicon^ s. r. Aegidius). 

The relics of the saint, buried in the church 
dedicated by himself to St. Peter, but translated 
br Abbat Antulphus in 925 to the neighhouring 
M)9j(Gaii. Christ, ri. 48^)^ w«re sUowed to rest 
ia peace, till the Albigensian war in 1209 exposed 
tbcm to danger, when they were transported to 
Toaloose and laid over one of the altars in the 
church of St. Satuminus (St. SerninX where the 
bndy %till was when Baillet wrote. Pope Urban 
IV. added to the honour of the saint, by giving 
his office a pbce in the Romsn Breriary as a 
semi-double ; but since the middle of the 16th 
ernturr it has been reduced to a simple office. 
Sl Giles, whose name was received into the 
Laglisb Martyrologies subsequently to the time 
cf Bede (Beds, Martf^roiojium in t. ir. p. 117. 
ei. Giles), still retains a place in the reformed 
La^lish Calendar ; the Sarum Epistle and Gospel 
v«r« Eftlus. xxzii. 5-9, St. Luke xi. 35-36. His 
feitiral b kept on September I. 

The original materials for the life of Aegidius 
sre :— (1) the life by an anonymous sathor, pub- 
\»'htd frr>m the collation of six MSS. by Stilting, 
with his critical notes in Act. SS, BoU. Sept. i. 
I^^^— Vi4 ; (2) two lives in prose, end one in verse, 
■»*ntionMi by Baillet ; (3) Acts, kept in the trea- 
larv of the parish of SS. Leu and Gilles in Paris, 
cr'ttmended by Ren^ Benoit, Cure of St. Eus- 
ta^hc; and Andre Du Saussay, Bishop of Toul. 
(4) lliracles, composed by retrus Guillelmus, 
L^cirian of St. Gilles, in 1120, edited by Jafie in 
P«rts,Jroisem^/<i,xiv. 316-323. A tract by J. L. 
Sfierl An St. Gil*s, as the patron of Nuremberg, 
vif pubtiJied at Altorf in 1749. [C. D.J 

tMkeitnm, a colony in Thrace, towards the clobe 
•f the aeonod century, one of several bishops 
vte Bitested by their suljscriptions their r*'jec- 
l*% tf the Montanist pretensions to the gilt of 
prvpkccT. It does not diAtinctly apjwar to 
*ul docoment, or on what occasion the?ie sij^na- 
t«jn were affixed, or for whose use they were 
•penally destined. They are produced in a 
Utter, a fragment of which is preserved by 
Eawbint (//. E. v. 19), by Serapion, bi»hop of 
istiech ; but may have been copied by him from 
i Utter of Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hicra- 
fMa. which S^rapir>n cites on the same occ<uion, 
ii srier to show that the activity of the Mon* 




tanist school of prophecy was "abominated by 
all the brotherhood in the world." Aelius 
ascribes the Montanist prophecies to demoniacal 
possession, and attests with an oath that Sotaa, 
bishop of Anchialus, had been prevented by " the 
h vpocrites " from exorcising the Montanist pro- 
phetess Priscilla. Similar stories are elsewhere 
told of other bishops [Montaitibm]. The anoma- 
lous combination of three gentile names in Aelius 
Publius Julius deserves to be noticed. [G. S.] 

AELOAEUS [Eloabus]. 


AENEAS, of Gaza (Gaxaeus), a Christian 
philosopher of the Neoplatonic school, a disciple 
of Hierocles of Alexandria, flourished c 487 A.D. 
All we know of him is drawn from his own writ- 
ings, of which we only have a dialogue, entitled 
Theophra$tus from one of the interlocutors, On 
the Immortality of the Scul and the Kesurrection 
of the Body (Galland. Bibt. Patr. torn. x. pp. 629- 
664), and 25 letters, which have been printed by 
Aldus in his Epittol. Oraec. CollectiOf Yen. 1499. 
From his letters it appears that he was a frieud 
of his fellow-townsman Procopius, and had the 
same correspondents. His date is ascertained 
in his TTieophrastuSf where he asserts (as *'a 
cool, learned, and unexceptionable witness, with- 
out interest and without passion," (Gibbon, 
D, ^ F.y ch. 37) that at Constantinople he had 
heard the confessors whose tongues Hunneric, 
son of Genseric, had caused to be cut out in the 
persecution of the orthodox at Tipasa, a.d. 484, 
speak articulately. {Theophr. ap. Galland, BibL 
Patr. X. p. 661 ; cf. Victor Vitens. de Pertec, 
VandoU. v. 6 ; Gibbon, u. a.) 

His Theophraatue is praised by Ritter for the 
brilliancy of its style and successful imitation of 
Plato's dialogues. Its chief purpose is to attack 
the doctrine of the previous existence of souls, 
and to establish those of the immortality of the 
soul and the resurrection of the bodv. He main- 
tains an incessant creation of souls by God, and 
holds that a soul cannot exist anteriorly to its 
descent into an earthly body. Without the body 
man cannot be. The body contains a germ, 
enclosing something of the Eternal within itself, 
and therefore, though it decays, aud appears to 
perish, is destined to be renewed and come to 
perfection (Cave, Hi»t. Lit. i. 459 ; Fabric. BiH. 
Graec. x. 689 ; Gallandi, Bibl. Patr. x. 629-664 ; 
Oudin. i. ; Brucker, lliat. Ant. Philos. iii. 527 ; 
Ritter, Phitosoph. Chr^icnne). [E. V.] 

AEON, in the Valentinian and some later 
systems, is the name for the various subordinate 
heavenly powers evolved from the Supreme 
Deity. How a woril signifying an "age " came 
to be applied in this manner hsK never Ix^n satis- 
factorily explained. Philo*s usage is merely Pla- 
tonic ; and both the oluv of Greek philosophy 
and the Kl^v of Greek mythology are alien to 
the Gnostic conception. We should probiibly look 
rather to some seconilary employment of the 

Shemitic equivalent oSy {*Olam). The plu- 
rality of Aeons here creates the difficulty. There 
was undoubtedly (Jablonski, Ofmsr, i. 373 f. ; 
Movers, Phoen. i. 544 f.) a Phoenician deitv 
called in Greek Alw¥ (Sanchun. ap. Ens. P. £, 
i. 10 ; Ihimasc. de Prinr. 208 Aiwy ao<rfiiic<(f, 
385 ObKmfi^sy, who ap{tears to have been intro- 
duced at Alexandria (Damasc. ap. Suid. s. v. 




Aiayp<&fAM¥t 'HpatffKoSf 'Eiri^cCytor). The su- 
preme " Bythtts " was indeed by some Valenti- 
nUQs called the " Perfect Aeon " (Iren. 5) or the 
" Never-ftging Aeon " (Auct. Valent. ap. Epiph. 
JIaer, 168b ; cf. Aoeratus), &c. ; but these desig- 
nations evidently presuppose a plurality. 

In Bardeisan's system the Syriac Hief Beings 
(Ephr. Syr., as quoted by Hahn, Bartfes. 58 f.), 
may perhaps represent the Aeons. They are said 
to occur under their proper name " 'Olamim ** in 
the Mandaean Thesaurus, Mani too had true 
Aeons, " saecula " (Fp,fund, ap. Aug. c. Ep, Man, 
11; Aug. c. Faust, xt. 5; cC Fliigel, Mani 
U.S.W., 274 ff.> 

For the doctrine of Aeons see VALENTiNUfS 
Gnosticism. [H.] 

AERIUS, *A/pior, founder of the heretical 
sect of the Aeriaxs, c. 355, still living when 
Epiphanius wrote against heresies, 374-376. He 
was the early friend and fellow-disciple of Eusta- 
thius of Sebasteia in Pontus [Eustathiub of 
Skhasteia]. While they were living an ascetic 
life together the bishoprick of Sebasteia became 
vacant. Each of the friends was a candidate for 
the office. The choice fell on Eustathius. This 
was never forgiven by Aerius. Eystathius en- 
deavoured to soften his friend's disappointment 
by at once ordaining Aerius presbyter, and setting 
him over the hospital established at Sebasteia for 
the reception of strangers, the maimed, and in- 
cipable ((cKoSoxctoi', or irT«x<wpo^*ior). But 
all his attempts were fruitless. The irritated 
pride of Aerius caused him to take a prejudiced 
view of all his rival's proceedings; envy deepened 
into dislike, and dislike into open hostility. He 
threw up his charge, deserted the hospital, and 
ojienly published grave charges against his 
bishop ; whom he accused of being entirely 
changed, having deserted the ascetic life, and 
being simply intent on the amassing of wealth. 
Eustathius spared no pnms to i*egain his friend : 
he tried caresses, entreaties, warnings, threats, 
in vain. The rupture with himself widened into 
A ruptui*e with the Church. Aerius and his fol- 
lowers, who amounted to a considerable number 
of both sexes, openly seiiarated from their fellow- 
Christiacs, and professed aroro^/o, or the renun- 
ciation of all worldly goo<ls. Very hard measure 
seems to have been dealt to them by the 
Christians of the day. They were denied not 
only admission to the churches, but even access 
to the towns and villages, and they were com- 
polleii, even in the depth of winter, when the 
country w:is covered with snow, to sojourn in 
the ojH!n Helils, or in caves and ravines, and hold 
their religions assemblies in the ojten air expo^)ed 
to the severity of the horrible Armenian winter. 
Little mercy would l>e incuhNited by the eccle- 
siastical rulei-s towards the followei*s of one who 
ventured to hr\n-r Scriptural wcajtons to the 
Attack of the fast-growing sacenlotalism of the 
age; who dared to cnll in question the pre- 
rogatives of the episcopate; and who was st rug- 
idling to deliver the Church from the yoke of 
ceremonies which wci*e threatening to become as 
dendcnin<; and imoi'c burdensome thnn the rites of 
Judaism. The protest of Aerius was premature. 
Centuries ha«l to oinpse before it could be eflcctu- 
nlly renewe«l. The Aerians were proclaimed 
heretics by the unitcil venlict of an offended hier- 
mrchy, and their voices diinl out unheeded. 


Our only knowledge of the tenets of Aeriw 
is from Epiphanius. Augustine's account, in bii 
work, De Haeresitjus, c. 53, is merely an epitom 
of the statement of Epiphanius. Aerius, *' to tiM 
world's misfortune," fitya Ktuchv rw K6ffiuf, wai 
still "living in the flrah And surviving in life" 
when Epiphanius vrrote. His teaching was still 
fresh. And his followers not few or unimportAst, 
while the principles he enunciAted — so remArk' 
able An Anticipation of those propounded by tbl 
Protestant churches At the Reformation — went w 
fearlessly to the root of much thAt the Churd 
was beginning to cling to as its most preciooi 
possMsiou, thAt we cAnnot feel much surprise a! 
the excessive vehemence of the UnguAge em- 
ployed by EpiphAnius with regArd to his tesdi 
ing: fua^ivtfis fiaWor ^irep Korturrdirtms dbr 
Bpwwiintt. He even pi Ays upon his nAiM 
declaring, with reference to Eph. ii. 2 ; vi IS 
that Aerius was rightly so CAlled : kipiov fk^ 
f<rxe*^ wrwfia i^ hcaOap<rias iiwh r&r ii*pim 
xytv/xdrttif rf}f rromiplas rh iv avr^ oik^ita 
Kark rris 'EirJcAi}<rfai. 

Whether, as Epiphanius Asserts, he wen 
beyond Arius in his impieties or no, his earl; 
connection with Eustathius will hardly alloi 
us, with some Protestant writers, to call i 
question the Arian character of his teachiiif 
which is distinctly affirmed by Epiphanius. Ba 
it WAS not on this that the charge of hemy wi 
grounded. Epiphanius specifies four spedi 
counts, each of which he thinks sufficiently in 
portant to call for particular refutation. (1 
The first of these, with which the name ( 
Aerius has been chiefly identified in model 
times, is the assertion of the equality of bisho] 
and presbyters, fila ri^it, fila rifih^ ^f' i^imfu 
He b.ises this view on the language of the Apo 
tolic Epistles, where no such distinction can 1 
generally maintained, and from the identity * 
many of their functions. When he says thi 
each xeipoOcrei, the ambiguity of the word lear 
it uncertain whether he denied the grace 
ordert and the necessity of episcopal ordinatio 
Augustine's statement (/. c.) " docuisse ferti 
quod episcopus non potest ordinare " must be 
misrepresentation of his tenets. No one er 
denied a bishop's power to ordain. The on 
question was whether he alone possessed th 
(>ower. (2) Aerius also ridiculed the observAB 
of Blaster as a relic of Jewish superstition, to ' 
cast aside now that '* Christ our Passover h 
been sacrificed for us." (3) Prayers and oflif 
ings for the dead he regarded not as useless on] 
but as pernicious. If they availed to the bene 
of the departed, no one need trouble himself 
live holily : he would only have to provide, 
bribes or otherwise, a multitude of persons 
make prayers and offerings for him, and 1 
salvation was secure. (4) All set fasts he o 
demned. A Christian man should fast when 
felt it to be for his soul's good : appointed days 
f:!sting were relics of Jewish bondage. Epipl 
nius charges his followers with showing th 
contempt for Church usage, by gratifying th 
appetites to a greater degree than usual 
We<Inesdays and Fridays and the solemn we* 
before Easter, and f:isting on Sundays ; and 
dulging in undisguised mo<^kery of those n 
followed the rule of the Church. 

Philastcr, whose authority when unconfirD 
by other testimony is very small, confoundA 




S«e under Etiiel- 

HABD, kc 

kaiaan with the Encratites, and asserts that 
thejr practiced abstinence from food and rejected 
Marria^ (Philaat. Ifaer, 72). 

The ooljr original authority on Aerius and his 
followers is the Panarittm of Kpiphanius, ffaer. 
75. A summary of his statements is given by 
Augustine, De Hatret. 53 ; Philaster, /. c, is 
simply mtitleading. The student may further 
coteult Srhrockh, ChnttHche Kirch. Gesch. vol. 
Ti. pp. 22S-234; Wnlch, Ketzerhist, vol. iii. 
pp. 221, «7. ; Neander, Ch, Hist. rol. iii. pp. 461-> 
463 (Clark's translation) ; Herzog. Heal Encyrl, 
Tol. L 165; Tillemont, Hist, EccUt. vol. ix. 
pp. 87, 9q. [E, v.] 

AERIUS, a Christian sophist, a native of 
Crnia, and friend and correspondent of Theodoret. 
Tbeodoret wrote to him early in his episcopate, 
bhting him to the consecration of the church he 
\aA built at Cyrus ; and again (c 442) in behalf 
•f Celestiacos, formerly a wealthy senator of Car- 
tksge, who had lost his all in the sack of the city 
by Gen5eric. (Theodt. Ep. 30, 66.) [E. V.] 








AETIUS CA^riof), the founder and head of 

the strictest sect of Arianbm, upon whom, on 

account of the boldness of his reasonings on the 

nature of God, theological bitterness with its 

customary exaggeration, affixed the surname of 

••the ungodly,'* &9cof (Soz. iii. 15): an epithet, 

kf^verer. not to be taken in its modern sense of 

*'athei»t,'' which, as implying intention and 

system, is fitr too strong. He was the first to 

cirry out the doctrines of Arius to their iegi- 

tim:ite issue, and in opposition both to Homoou- 

Btn* a»l Homoiousians maintained that the Son 

was unlike^ iu^ifuios, the Father, from which 

h» fftlloven took the name of Anomoenns. 

f AyoMOKANS]. They were also known as Kuno- 

miaas [^Kl'XOMIAXs], from his amanuensis and 

papil Lunomius, who proved the principal apolo- 

jTiit of the party ; and as Heterusiasts and Exu- 

kf*otianA,aa affirming that the Son was 4^ iripat 

MCicf from the Father, and created i^ oIk Hyrcav. 

The events of his singularly vagrant and 
cH#i{TierMi career are related from very ditferent 
p'lats of view by the Eunominn Philostorgius, 
•ai the orthodox writers Socrates, Soznmen, 
Taettloret, and Orej^ory NyM»en. The friendly 
f«i of Philo»torgiui carefully soAens all the 
•drn»ire feature-i of his history, which his theo- 
loortl adversaries delight to {mint in the Mackest 
ttiU^rt. After making all due allowance for the 
ufiiraesa of (Arty spirit, we must regard Aetius 
■• a biild and unprincipled adventurer, endowed 
Vita an indomitable love of disputation, which, 
tflcet Aer with an ostentatious delight in display- 
la/ hifl dialectic skill, led him, without any depth 
•f f-r-orirtion, into incessant arguments on the 
aatort c'f the G«idhead, the person of our I.ord, and 
9tiftT transcendental subjects, and rendered his 
kit ooe oa wearied and fruitless strife, not only 

with the orthodox but with the less pronounced of 
the Anan party who shrunk from accepting his 
dogma of the dissimilarity of the Father and the 
Son. Bom of comparatively humble parentage, 
" his restless and aspiring spirit urged him to 
try almost every profession of human life. He 
was," in the graphic words of Gibbon, " success- 
ively a slave, or at least a husbandman, a travelling 
tinker, a goldsmith, a physician, a shoemaker, a 
theologian, and at last the apostle of a new 
church " {Decline and Fall, c xxi.). He was born 
at Antioch. His father, who had held some 
minor office, possibly as apparitor, under the 
president of the province, having died insolvent, 
nis property was confiscated to discharge his 
official liabilities, and Aetius, then a child, and 
his mother, were left in a state of extreme desti- 
tution (Philostorg. H. E. iii. 15; cf Valesius* 
notes; Suidas, wb. voc, *A.4rio%). According to 
Gregory Nyssen, he became the slave of a woman 
named Ami)elis; and having obtained his free- 
dom in some disgraceful manner, took up the 
trade of travelling tinker. Gregory paints a 
lively picture, for which he probably drew 
largely on his imagination, of the future hei-e- 
siarch travelling the country with his leathern 
tent, and mending pots and pans with his little 
hammer and portable anvil. He soon tried a 
higher flight, and applied bis hand to richer 
metals, practising the art of a goldsmith. Hav- 
ing been convicted of substituting copper (or 
gold in an ornament entrusted to him by a 
soldier's wife for repair, he gave up his trade, 
and attaching himself to an itinerant quack, 
picked up some knowledge of medicine. He 
met with a ready dupe in an Armenian, whose 
large fees placed Aetius above the reach of 
want. He now began to take rank as a regular 
practitioner at Antioch, and attended the con- 
sultations of the physirlnns of the place, where 
his loud voice, ready tongue, and power as a 
disputant were, accoi-diug to Gregory, at the 
command of any who would pay for them (Greg. 
Nyss. adv. Eunom. lib. i. vol. ii. p. 293). Phi- 
lostorgius knows nothing of this passage in his 
history, but tells us that his mother's death 
having rendered it unnecessary for him to cariT^ 
on his trade, he betook himself entirelv to the 
study of philosophy and dialectics, to which he 
had already devoted his nights, and became the 
pnpil of Paulinus, the Arian bishop, the fricDd 
of Eusebius the historian, recently removed from 
Tyre to Antioch, c. 323 (Philost. iii. 15). Aetius 
attached himself to the Aristotelian form of 
philosophy, and with him, Milman remarks 
{/list, of Christianity^ vol. ii. p. 443) the 
strife between Aristotelianism and Plntonism 
among theologians seems to have Wji^uu. His 
chief study was the Categories of Aristotle, the 
sco|)e of which, accorrling to Socrates (//. E. ii. 
3.'»), he entirely misconceive*!, and which he 
simply employed as instruments for building 
up sophistical arguments to j»rove his prosaic 
! and unimaginative doctrines, repudiating the 
prevailing Platonic mrnie of argument used by 
Origen and Clemens Alex. The jealousy and ill- 
will he had excited as an indomitable disputant, 
whom it was equally hopeless to silence or to 
convince, broke out when the death of Paulinus, 
! af>er a six months' tenure of the sec, dej>rived 
! him of his protector, c 324. His suocensoi 
Eolalios yielded to the popular feeling, and 



banished Aetim to Anazarbus in Cilicia, where 
he again gained his livelihood by his trade, 
disputing at the same time with all who wonld 
enter into argument with him. Here his dialec- 
tic skill charmed the heart of a grammarian, 
who took him home and instructed him more 
fully, reoeiTing repayment by his menial services. 
Unable to resist his combatireness, he tried his 
polemic powers against his bene&ctor, whom he 

Ent to public shame by the open confutation of 
is interpretation of Scripture. On the ignomi- 
nious dismissal which naturally followed, Atha- 
nasius, the Arian bishop of the place, opened his 
doors to the outcast, and read the Gospels with 
him. He prosecuted his study of the New Tes- 
tament by reading St. Paul's epistles at Tarsus 
with Antoniua, who, like Athanasius, had been a 
disciple of Lucian, Arius' master. On Antonius' 
elevation to the episcopate, Aetius returned to 
Antioch, where he studied the prophets, particu- 
larly Ezekiel, with Leontius, afterwards bishop of 
that see, also a pupil of Lucian. The storm of 
unpopularity to which he had already been forced 
to yield was again excited by his unbridled tongue 
and the obtrusive impiety of his doctrines, and 
soon drove him from Antioch. Cilicia was once 
more his haven of refuge ; but his former good 
fortune seemed to have forsaken him, and he was 
defeated in argument by one of the Borborian 
Gnostics. Overwhelmed by the disgrace of his 
defeat, he left Asia, and betook himself to Alex- 
andria, and soon recovered his former character 
as an invincible adversary by vanquishing in 
argument the Manichean leader Aphthonius, 
whose fiime had contributed to draw him to 
Egypt. Aphthonius, according to Philostorgius 
(//. E. iiL 15) only survived his defeat seven 
days. Here Aetius again took up his former 
professions, studying medicine under Sopolis, and 
practising gratuitously for the benefit of the 
poor, and working as a goldsmith at night and 
at spare hours, undertaking any jobs that re- 
quired a hand of more than ordinary skill. 

On the murder of Gregory the Arian bishop 
of Alexandria, and the triumphant return of St. 
Athanasius in 349, Aetius felt it prudent to 
return to Antioch, of which his former teacher 
Leontius was now bishop. By him Aetius was 
ordained deacon c 350 (Philost. iii. 17 ; Socr. 
H, E. ii. 35 ; Athanaa, de Synod, § 38, Oxford 
translation, p. 137 ; Suidaa, b. r.X with permUsion 
to teach publicly. This was far more to his taste 
than th(' humbler duties of the diaoonate, which 
his pation permitted him to repudiate. His 
ordination was successfully protested against by 
Flavian and Diodorus, though still laymen, and 
he was inhibited from the exercise of his minis- 
try (Theodoret, H. E. ii. 24). Epiphanius erro- 
neously asserts that he was admitted to the 
diaoonate by George of Cappadocia, the intruding 
bishop of Alexandria (Epiphan. Haeres. Ixxvi. 1). 
Aetius now developed more fully his anomoean 
'tenets, teaching openly that the Son was created 
^{ obK tmw. and was dissimilar to the Father, 
and exerted all his influence to induce the Arian 

Sirty to refuse communion with the orthodox, 
is fiulure exasperated him, and he now began to 
withdraw himself from the less pronounced 
Arians, and in his turn to refuse to hold com- 
munion with them (Soc H. E. ii. 359). Tliis 
schism in the Arian party was still further 
developed at the first council of Sirmium, 


▲.D. 351, where he attacked the rtspectabb 
semi-Arian (Homoiousian) bishops, Basilius of 
Ancyra, and Eustathins of Sebute, with a 
vehemence and ability that, aooording to Philo- 
storgius (if. E. iii. 16X reduced them to a humili- 
ating silence. Exasperated by hb disoomfitur^ 
Basil denounced his opponent to the weak aad 
cruel Gallus, who, having been named Caesar ia 
351, had fixed his abode mt Antioch, and declared 
himself a champion of a fiiith which he never 
allowed to restrain his passions or influence hie 
conduct. Gallus ordered the pestilent heretic it 
be put to death by '* crurifragium ;** but his lift 
was spared at the intercession of the InahM 
Leontius, who refuted the calumnies of hie 
enemies; and being subsequently introduced it 
Gallus by Theophilus Blemmys, he speedilT 
gained his friendship, and acquired so moca 
influence with him that he was sent by Galloe 
to his brother Julian to win him back from the 
paganism into which he was lapsing. Gallui 
also appointed him his religious teadier (Phileet. 
H. E, iii. 27 ; Greg. Nyss. u. «. p. 294> 

The fall of Gallus in 354 caused a change ii 
the fortunes of Aetius. He was accused of com* 
plicity in the massacre of Domitian and M ontioi, 
but escaped the vengeance of Constantius, and re< 
turned to Alexandria in 356 to support the waniDi 
cause of Arianism against the influence whicl 
Athanasius, though again banished, exerted fron 
his desert hiding-place. The see of Athanasln 
was then occupiml by George of Cappadocia 
under whom Aetius served as a deacon, and whei 
nominated to the episcopate by two Arian bishopi 
Serras and Secundus, he refused to be ordainei 
by them on the ground that they had held coa 
munion with the Homoousian party (Philoet. ill 
19). Here he was joined by his renowned pnpl 
and secretary Eunomius, who had been draw 
from Cappadocia by the &me of his wisdom, a» 
eventually became the most powerful champie 
of his master's doctrines (Greg. Nyss. «. s. p. 299 
Socr. H. E. ii. 22 ; Philoet. H. E. iii. 20). Great« 
troubles were now at hand for Aetiux. Th 
sense of his defeat, which still rankled in tk 
breast of Basil of Ancyra, was exasperated by hi 
disappointment once more in not obtaining U 
see of Antioch after the death of Leontius, ai 
he denounced his vanquisher to the civil powe 
Constantius had taken Arianism under his impeii 
protection. The views of Aetius were het erode 
even to the heterodox, and his theological erra 
were rendered more unpardonable by his snppoti 
complicity in the treasonable designs of Ualh 
He was accordingly given over to Bosil and \ 
party, by whom he was banished to Pepun 
Phrygia. The influence of the court prelat 
Ursacius and Valens soon procured the revocati 
of the decree of banishment. But the untiril 
hostility of his opponents, after a short intenn 
drove him again into exile. The hard irrei 
rence of Aetius, and the determination wi 
which he pushed to the utmost the legitinu 
conclusions from the principles of Arius, shodi 
the more religious among the Arian party, a 
forced the bishops in self-defence to use 
measures to crush one equally dangerous as 
ally and an opponent. His doctrines were a 
becoming alarmingly prevalent. ** Nearly f 
I whole of Antioch had suffered from the sh 
wreck of Aetius, and there was danger lest 1 
whole (once more) should be submerged" (Let 



«f Gnrct biihop of Ludico, ap. Sol. H. E. Ti. ' 
lit. Tuy thercfoR employed ill their lafluenco ' 
wnh Coiutautiiu to procure tbe iDmrnDning of 
MOBther coUDCil to Httle the great theological 
" ' for Nio* 

■hkli (batttttil the city, preTetited iti aseein- 
Uug then, and the ialrigoee of the conrt partj 
■ad th* inHneBo* of tiie all-powerful eunuch 
bnibiui brouiiht about iti diviiioD into two 

■hat for ttw e»l at Selrocii in leaoria, A.D. 359. 
Tke ta(Ut eouBcil, afler foor or Hit dayi" delibe- 
nlion, aepaiaUd without haTiog come to aof 
' ' " The Aiiaui, S«miariaD>, 

(Xilmaa, BUI. Ckritt. ili. & 8> WhaUitr 
th>n|ili wai gainod mtad with the opponeDti 
tt thr Aatiax, who appealed to the empcrar 
aad tbe court, and a Mcoiul geoenl couocil 

ithaoaa. dt Sgiuid. {) 10, 12). Of thia couDcil 
Icarioa wai the leading ipirit, and by lome 
itraag* oocBbinatiDa of circumilaDcei a iplit 
Kcund anoDg the AnomocaD fbllowmof Aetitu. 
Tlie pMty tiinmphed, but iU founder wai lent 
uti< baniahnKBt. The place of hii eiile wai 
Ifopaacatia : but the emperor beariog that ha 
wai kudlf tnat«i Iber* bj Auieatiui the 
liu.bap, enleRd him to be traoiferred to Am- 
Mida ia Pliidia, a wild and barbaroni place at 
the foot of HDDDt Tiurui. Here, howerer, he 
[liBBl the goodwill of the laTDge iubabitanti by 
tlM power of bii prafen, hiTiag, ai thej iDp- 
pneJ, arcrted a pdliUnce cauied bj the eitreme 
keat (Ttwod. iL 23; Soi. it. 2.1, 24; Philoat. 
JT. 12 ; Ong. Ntb. o. i. p. 301). 

Tlw dcalE of Coututiui, A-D. 361, pot aa 
nj to Actini' aiila. Julias, on hb accenioa, 
lecallad all the buithed bithopa, aud wrote a 
piTatr letter to Actiui, erideDciDg id agreeable 
r*c<4lMlioB of hii former iulercourM, and in- 
-t (£p. Juliami, 3t, p. 52, 

when h* rwided for a ihort time with EnnDmins, 
hii (inn friend through all bii viciiiitodei, and 
Florentiiu, the biihop to whom the; had en- 
traited their party. Hii death took plan 

I l.D. 367. Hii lilt boun wer« watched over by 
EHDomini, by whom aud hii theological adhertnla 

I hii funeral waa perlarmtd with much magnifi- 
cence (Pbiloit. ii. 6). 

I Aetini waa the author oT Mreial letten to 
Conttantiui and othen, filled with theological 
technicalitiea aud lubtle diiquiaitiaD on tha 
nature of tha Deity (Soer. IL 3S), uid of 300 

: heretical propoaitioni, of which Epipbaoiui haa 

I preKrred 47 {Ha*rtt. lixirL f 10), togethar 
with a refutatiim of each. [£. V.] 

I ASriUR. (l),aPaleitinian biihop, who COD- 
demned the ARCHONTic Peter of Capharbaricha, 
about B generation before 3BI (Eniph. Hatr. 
291). A Biihop of Lydda (Dioapolli) of Ifaia 
nsme lUbicribed the C. of Ntcaea (325). fet h« 
had been claimed not long before by Ariui ai a 
partiian (Theodorel, H. E.\. b: cf. ». 7 ; Epiph. 
Hitr. 731c); he took part to the Arian Synod 
of Antiocb Id 330 (Theodoret, H. K. I. 20) ; and 
the Arian hiitorian Phil,»torgiui (/f. E. ill. 12) 
accuMi him of bBTlng joined the AthanatiaDi la 
the hope of ending a charge of fornication, add- 
ing that ht died loou afler by an appropriate 
judgment. An Aetiui itandi lecond among the 
PileitluiaD biihopa vbo lubacribed the C. of 
Sardic* (347 ; Ath. Ap. c. Ar. 50), a 

ai Boiiwis ; Soi. t. b\ 
(mblic connTanca to Eiciiilate hii return, 
a> the iutaace of Endoilui (Philoet. ii. 4) j 
■Btai him with a landed eitate in the iaUm 
Lokca ai atakenofhti goodwill. The cccl 
idHsI etaaat* wai taken oS Acliui by Euio 
twAriiB biihopof AnUoch (Philoil. vii. 5), * 
vnh the biihop of hii p^u^yj compiled a deft 
<^k^duciriaei(PhiLTiii. 2) According to 1 
pkaaiu (fl.irr. «.t), be wai ooniecraled biiho; 
ruitaatiBoyle, though not to any particular . 

kiliqpi for hii own party in the capital and e 
■ker* (PbiloiL Till 2). On Ihi death of Joviai 

1 lit< 

ipeci«lly « 

!d Alhan 

lie (Ath. ib. 57 ; cf. 
a. Ar. ad iloit. 25> 

(S). A blihopoftheVatentiniani ilConitanlia 
In CTprui. According to Polybiui (V. £»A. 
59) he wai ilruck dumb by Epiphanini for hii 
biaiphemlei, aud died on the Tth day. [H.] 

AETLA, a pupil of S. Hilda in the manasierr 
of Whitbv, who according lo Uede became biihop 
of Dorcheiter. He ii probably the ume u 
Haeddi, who wai biihop of the Wait S».oo> from 
676 to 705; leeHAtDDI: but Florence of Wor- 
ceiter(jr. H. B. 622) luppoaei him to haie been 
the biihop of a new «« eitabliihed for Ibe South 
Anglei in 679, in coniequeDce of the decrM of 
the Bvnod of Hertfoid. Dorcheiter, however, 
wai still a part of We« 

V. by Kaeddi, w 

r until tbe t 


k place before l>93. 

I, Val> 

n hii : 

M CoBitutinupia, ihowed 

a lllyr 


Mind from the city to the farm given him bv 
iiliaa Id Laaboa (Philort. li. 4). The rernlt of 
hagupioi once more end.inge»d hii life. He 
nh accniad tn the goTemnr, whom Procoplui I 
kal plMPi in Iha I^Uod, of &TnnriBg the cauie \ 
•fVBJm.a.I>..3e5-^, and hii life waioolyuved . 
k* tie lalerrentitin ot a pnw-rful faTourite of 
rncKfiaa. who VM a kiniman of two of Euno- 
■»>■' trM BltM-h*l follnwen (Philoil. ii. C). 
Aitrai eaca owiw ratnnwd to CoDitantinople, 

H.ieddi (bede, //. E. It. 2% ; A-ng. tSacra, I. 1D2, 
193). [S.] 

AFRICANUS, an imnginnry writer on 
lies rei'erred lo by " Pnwdeitinatui " (i. heuiling 
.ndc.H3). [H.] 

Chrixbu writer at the b*Einiiiiis of the .Ird 
cealury, twice calle.1 by Suidai Seilni Africa- 
nu< (i. re. 'AApuiai'^i, Iwntrrn), but thii wai 
probably a lapse of memory. Xn other nni^ient 
Wiiler calli him Seilui, or Sieituii Juliiu, by 

taken for granted by 

he ol 



ea. He 

ulai a 






s life w 


e, no 



■ St. 


e (iiiT 

Ifl) -■ 




y tha 




(Sozomen, B. E, r.2i; flieron., in iibro de Zocii ' 
JiehraiciSy 8. v, 'E/a/hooGs, ii. p. 439 ; et in Epi' 
tiph, Paulae, !▼. p. 673) ; but, as Reland has ' 
shown in his Palaegtina^ pp. 427, 758 (see also ; 
Smith's Dictionary of Geojraphy^ 8. v, Emmaus)^ 
the town Emmaus situate in the plain country, 
(1 Mace. iii. 40) at the distance of 22 Roman 
miles (= 176 stadia) from Jerusalem. This 
town Emmaus having become ruined, Africanns, 
A.D. 221, went on a successful embassy to the 
Emperor Elagabalus, and was placed by him at 
the head of a commission for the restoration of 
the city, which thenceforward bore the name 
Nicopolis (Euseb., C%ron. ; Hieron., De Vir. Tllust. 
cap. 63). According to Sozomen (/. c.) the town 
did nut then first receive that name, but had 
been built a little after the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, and had been called Nicopolis to com- 
memorate the Roman victories over the Jews. 
Oeorgius Syncellus, in a passage, supposed by 
Scnhger to have bt.'en derived from the first part 
of the Chronica of Eusebius, names not Elaga- 
bjilus, but his successor Alexander, as the emperor 
to whom the embassy was sent. It is quite 
possible that two or three years may have inter- 
vened between the sending of the embassy and its 
successful terminaition. Two Syrian writers (the 
earlier of whom however lived at the end of the 
12th century), Di<mysius Barsalibi and Hebed- 
jesu, represent Africanus to have been Bishop 
of Emmaus (Assemani, Di'd. Orient, ii. p. 158, 
iii. p. 14). Against this statement must be set 
(be.Hides the silence of earlier authorities, none of 
whom asserts Afiicanus to have been even a pres- 
byter,) the fact that Origen in his letter to Afri- 
canus (see below) addresses him as ** brother," 
which is not the language of a presbyter writing 
to a bishop. The letter also concludes with a salu- 
tation heut to ** our good Pope Apollinarius ;" and 
it is most natural to conjecture that this Apol- 
linarius (of whom we do not read elsewhere) and 
not Atrtcanus was bishop of the place to which 
the letter was sent. If not a bishop at this 
time (about a.d. 238), Africanus could scarcely 
have become one afterwards ; for he addresses 
Origen as "son,** and if he were not then a 
bishop, this must indicate some considerable 
difl'erence of age; but Origen was then over 
fifty, so that Africanus could scarcely have been 
less than seventy. 

Cedrenus (//irf. Coinp.^ p. 207) places Africa- 
nns as llounshing in the reign of Pertinax, a.d. 
193. Eusebius (//. E.) places his notice of him 
under the reign of Gurdiun, a.d. 238-244. Hence 
S(Mliger, in the iaropuiv (rvvayvyfi appended to 
his edition of the Chronicon of Eusebius (p. 392), 
places Africanus the chronographer under Per- 
tinax, and the authiTr of the Cesti under Gordian. 
But even if we accept the unsupported testimony 
of so late an author as Cedrenus, it is possible 
that one man's lit;rary activity may have ex- 
tended over the whole intervening period ; he 
may have been born a.d. 170, or a little earlier, 
and died a.d. 240, c r a little later. 

\Vc have been able to find no authoritv for 
the statement made by Cave, and reitoated by 
several subsequent writers, that Africjinus died 
about a.d. 232. 

Afncnnus seems to have l)een a man of con- 
siderable |>er^onal activity. He meution;? in his 
Chronica cited by Eusebius (//. E. vi. 31) that 
lie made a journey to Alexandiia on account of 


the celebrity, for his knowledge of philosophy 
and Grecian science, of Heraclas, who aflerwardf^ 
A.D. 233, became Bishop of Alexandria, and who 
had been placed by Origen in charge of the cate- 
chetical class, about AJ>. 213. Africanus else- 
where (ap. Syncellum, p. 56, Routh, Bel, Sac iL 
250) refers to this visit to ^ypt. He also statei 
(Routh, ii. 243) that he had personallj visited 
the two spots which had been identibed witk 
the resting-place of Noah's ark, viz.. Mount 
Ararat in Parthia (Armenia), and Celaenae (Ape- 
meia, ^ jci/3orr^f) in Phrygia. He describes tin 
Dead Sea from personal obeenration. He seemi 
to have visited Edessa. To these travek «• 
must add his journey (to Rome ?) on the occasioe 
of his embassy ; and if, as there seems good 
reason, we are to ascribe to him the ir«irrol, tlie 
list of his travels must be farther extended. 

Africanus ranks with Clement and Origen ai 
among the most learned of the ante-Nicem 
fathers (Socrates, //. E, ii. 35 ; Hieron., J5/>. ai 
Magnum^ 83, vol. iv. p. 656). His great woric, 
which was intended to give a comparative riee 
of sacred and profane history from the creatki 
of the world, demanded an extensive range el 
reading ; and the fragments that remain contali 
references to the works of a considerable nombci 
of historical writers. 

The only work of Africanus which has com 
down to us in a complete state is his letter ti 
Origen already mentioned. This haa been pre 
served in several MSS., and is referred to V* 
many authors (Eus. //. E» vi. 31 ; Hieron^ A 
Vir, TU. cap. 63 ; Phot ins, cod. 34 ; Suidaa, a. i 
KppiKovhi ; Niceph. Call., //. E, t. 21, vm 
others). The correspondence originated in a dh 
cussion between Origen and a certain Bassm 
at which Africanus was present, and in whk 
Origen ap])ealed to the authority of that pai 
of the Book of Daniel which contains the stor 
of Susiinna. Africanus, "as was proper," u 
quiesced at the time, but afterwards wrote 
short letter to Origen urging with great vivacil 
several objections to the authenticity of this pci 
of the book ; that the story is wanting in gravit 
that it contains internal improbabilities, that tf 
kind of prophetic inspiration ascribed to Daid 
is different from that attributed to him in t] 
genuine book, that he is made to quote the Itt 
guage of his predecessors which no true propih 
has done, that the style is different from th 
of the genuine book, that this section is not 
the Book of Daniel as received by the Jews, m 
that it contains a play on Greek words whi 
shows that it was originally written in Grt 
and not in Hebrew, in which all the books 
the Old Testament are written. Origen repli 
at greater length, refuting these objections wi 
more or less success. He thinks it likely tl 
the lost Hebrew original contained a play 
words which the translators endeavoured to p 
serve. He contends that the argument that i' 
section is not owned by the Jews would pn 
too much, and would oblige us also to reject 1 
story of Bel and the Dragon, the Song of 1 
Three Children, and many other noitsages foi 
in the Gieek text and not in the Hebrew, i 
he urges an argument, afterwards pressed 
Rufinus against Jerome, that it would be 
det^radatiou to the Church if she were forced 
cast Oj^ide her sacred books, and go begging 
the Jews to give her unadolterated Scriptnrtt 


Hiis letter of Africanas has been regarded a^ 
proTiBf that he was acquainted with Hebrew ; 
bmt be makes no objections which might not 
hare beea mrged on slight knowledge of the 
Uagaage, or on information derived from Jewish 
SDoreea. A passage in Origen's replv conveys 
the impression that he did not rate his corre- 
ipoadent's Hebrew aoqaireroents very highly; 
sad the chrooological work of Africanus is based 
flo the Septnagint and not on the Hebrew, the 
fragments preserved showing that in some cases 
he did not look beyond that version (see Routh's 
Fragments, iiu, v^ vii.). It seems probable that 
vhiie Africanus had that slight knowledge of 
Hebrew which a learned and inquisitive man 
eoald scarcely have lived in Palestine without 
acqoinng, it was not enough to enable him to 
aiske ranch use of the Hebrew Bible. 

The date of the correspondence betvreen Africa- 
■u and Origen is limited by the considerations 
tkst Origen writes fVom Nicomedia, having pre- 
noQsly visited Palestine, and that he makes a 
nference to his labours in a comparison of the 
Greek and Hebrew texts which indicates that he 
ksd already published the Hexapla. These con- 
ations are best satisfied by a date about a.d. 
S38. This eorrespondence was first printed in 
s Latin translation by Leo Gastrins (Salamanca, 
I570X appended to his commentaries on Isaiah. 
Of snbseqaent editions the more remarkable are 
WeUUin's (Basle, 1674), with notes intended to 
cxtenoate as much as may be Origen's defence 
•f the story of Susanna ; and De la Rue's, who 
gives the letters, with notes replying to Wet- 
stein, in the Benedictine edition of Origen, vol. i. 
The letters were printed also in Gallandii BibL 
rrf. Pai, vol. it. ; and the letter of Africanus, 
Wt not that of Origen, is given in Routh's HeL 
Aor. iL 225. 

Xot less celebrated than the letter of Africa- 
iw to Origen, is his letter to Aristidee, of whom 
■cthinc else is known, on the discrepancy be- 
tween onr Saviour's genealogies as given by St. 
Matthew and St. Luke. This has not been com- I 
p«H«ly preserved, but a considerable portion is 
gitea by Ensebius (//. E. i. 7^ and Routh {F!el. 
Jf-x, ii. 228) has published this together with a 
fragment not previously edited. A compressed 
vntion of the letter is given also in Eusebii ad 
Stephanum, Qunest, iv. (Mai, Script Vet, Nov, 
OM^ vol. L). Africanus begins his letter by re- 
jectinj; an explanation preriously offered, namely, 
tJttt tlM» genealogies are fictitious ILsts, designed 
Isestahii'ih our Lord's claim to be both king and 
priea by tracing his descent in one Gospel from 
8«Ium«<n, in the other from Nathan, who it was 
isNimcd was Nathan the prophet. Africanus 
itiirts on the necessity of maintaining the literal 
truth c( the Gospel narrative, and protests 
a^ost the pious fraud of attempting to draw 
'«{mstie consequences from any statements not 
bvmM on historical fact. He then proceeds to 
five his own explanation, founded on the levi- 
rife law of the Jews, and professing to be tra- 
^Hfinally derived from the Desposyni (or descend- 
sata of the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near 
the rillaces of Nazareth and Cochaba. Accord- 
ifej: ti* this view Matthew gives the natural, 
Ukt the le^aL descent of our Lord. Mutthan, 
It is sail, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi 
•ftht boose of Nathan, married the same woman, 
is g^xtu as Estha. Hell the son 



of Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in 
our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by 
Africanus), having died childless, his uterine 
brother Jaoob, Matthan's son, took his wife and 
raised up seed to him ; so that the ofispring 
Joseph was legally Hell's son as stated by St. 
Luke, but naturally Jacob's son as stated by St. 
Matthew. For a critical examination and de- 
fence of this solution, see Mill On the AlythiccU 
Interpretation of the Gos^TelSy p. 201. Siriou«i 
doubts as to the trustworthiness of the testimony 
on which it rests are suggested by a story, whicn 
Africanus tells on the same authority, of a de- 
struction of genealogies by Herod in order to 
conceal the ignobleness of his own origin ; a story, 
the details of which are completely contradicted 
by history. And Africanus was not lilkely to be 
a severe critic of the evidence, since he mam- 
tains that in default of being able to produce a 
better solution we ought to accept his even on 
weak testimony. 

Besides references to this letter to Aristidea 
in places already indicated of Eusebius, Jerome, 
Photius, and Nicephorus Callistus, the solution 
of Africanus is adopted by St. Augustine {^Retract, 
lib. ii. cap. vii.). 

We come now to give an account of the great 
work of Africanus, his " accurately laboured " 
(Eus., //. E» vi. 31) treatise on chronology, in 
five books. As a whole this work has been lost, 
but we can form a good idea of its general cha- 
racter from the still remaining Chronicon of Euse- 
bius, which was based upon it, and which un- 
doubtedly incorporates much of it. Eusebius 
himself, p. 132, mentions the writings of Africa- 
nus among his authorities for Jewish history, 
subsequent to the times of which the Hebrew 
Scriptures treat. Several fragments of the work 
of Africanus can be identified by express quota- 
tions, either by Eusebius in his Praeparath and 
Demonstratio Evamjelii^ or by other writers, in 
particular by Georgius Syncellus in his Chrono- 
graphia. These have het*n collected by Gallandi 
(Bihl, Vet. Pat, vol. ii.^ and more fully by 
Routh {Pel. f>ac. vol. ii.). Photius describes the 
work of Africanus as concise, but omitting no- 
thing necessary to be recorded ; as beginning 
from the Mosaic cosmogony, and going down to 
the coming of Christ, and afterwanls touching 
cursorily on the events after Christ down to 
the reign of Macrinus. An extract from the 
work itself, prcserveil by Georgius Syncellus 
(p. 212), shows that the chronicle was brought 
a little further down, to the consulship of Ora- 
tns and Seleucus, the fourth ycnr of Elagu ba- 
ins, Olymp. 250, I, a.d. 221. The year of the 
world (5723) assigned in the extract to this con- 
sulship is the same as that named by Photius 
for the conclusion of the chronicle. The work 
must have been puhli.shed early in that year, and 
before the result of the Olympic contests was 
known, for the list of Olympic victors copied 
from Africanus by Eusebius terminates with 
the 249th Olympiad. The ancient chronologers 
usually arrangtnl their work in two piirts, a 
Xftot^oXoyta and iravwv ; the former part con- 
taining historical and chronological discussions, 
the latter drawing out their results into tables, 
in which each year was marked with its place 
in the different series com(»areil, as, for instance, 
its dates, accordiug to the Olympiads, A.r.<\, 
after Christ, its numl>er in such an em{)eror'i 



reign, its coDsulSf and so forth. It is of this 
latter part that the word chronicon in the sin- 
gular number is properly used. This part, con- 
taining the expanded results, is also sometimes 
called rh Korii wkdros^ as the former is KojBt d/uiSo. 
Kow Anianus calls the five books of Africanus 
T^ ica9' dfidZa, Yet that they were not unac- 
companied by a Koyiiy appears from Fragment 
zzxri. in Routh, where Africanus says that 
TIfiirtpos itavAv places the first Olympisid in the 
reign of Jotham, King of Judah. 

The following is an account of the plan of 
the work, and of some of its principal results. 
Before the time of Africanus, the Christian 
Apologists had been forced to engage in some 
chronological discussions in order to remove the 
heathen contempt of Christianity as a novelty, 
by demonstrating the great antiquity of the 
Jewish system, out of which the Christian 
sprang. Thus Tatian {Or. ad Qraec. cap. 39), 
Theophilus of Antioch {adAutol, iiL 21), Clement 
of Alexandria {^rcmatay i. 21), discuss the ques- 
tion of the antiquity of Moses, and, following 
Joseph us (conU Apion. i. 16), arrive at the con- 
clusion that Moses was a contemporary of 
Inachus, and that the Exodus took place 393 
years before the coming of Danaus to Argos. 
Africanus first set him&elf to make a complete 
synopsis of sacred and profane history from the 
creation of the world, where should be put In 
their proper places the most important facts re- 
corded in Scri])ture or by secular historians. To 
establish a synchronism between sacred and 
profane history, he used as a fixed point the ao- 
c^sion of Cyrus, which, alleging the authority 
of Diodorus, Thallus, Castor, Polybius, Phlegon, 
and others, he placed Olymp. 55, 1. Counting 
backwards then in sacred history, he computes 
1237 years between the £xodus and the end of 
the 70 yoars* captivity or the first of Cyrus, 
Similarly going back in profane history he com- 
putes, on the authority of Hellanicns and Philo- 
chorus, ] 020 years between Ogyges and the first 
Olympiad, and, adding 217 years between the 
first Olympiad and Cyrus, he finds also 1237 
years between Ogyges and Cyrus, and concludes 
that Moties and Ogyges were contemporaries. 
He thinks it likely that there was a connection 
between the Ogygian deluge and the plagues of 
£gypt ; and he confirms his conclusions by show- 
ing that it can Le deduced from Polemo, Apion, 
and Ptolemaeiis Mendesius, that Moses was a 
contemporary of Inachus, whose son, Phoroneus, 
reigned at Argos in the time of Ogyges. In the 
sacred history Africanus follows the Septuagint 
chronology ; he counts 2262 years to the deluge : 
he does not recognize the second Cainan : he 
places the Exodus a.m. 3707. In computing the 
years of the Judges he is blamed by Eusebius 
for lengthening the chronology by adding, with- 
out authority, 30 years for the elders after 
Joshua, 40 for anarchy after Samson, and 25 
years of peace. He thus makes 740 years be- 
tween the Exodus and Solomon. Our Lord's 
birth he places in the year of the world 5500, 
and two years before our common computation 
of Anno Domini. But he allows only one year 
for our Ix)rd*s public ministry, and brings the 
crucifixion thus to the vear a.m. 5531. He has 
a mystical calculation, in which he makes the 31 
years of our Saviour's life the complement of the 
069 years of Methuselah. To the period of the 


70 weeks he devoted especial attention, and it 
seems to have been the subject of a separate 
treatise (Routh, ii. 306). He calculates the com- 
mencement from the 20th year of Artaxerxes : 
from this to the death of our Lord he counts 
only 475 years ; but he contends that the 70 
weeks of Daniel are to be understood as 490 
lunar years of 354 days each, which are equi- 
valent to 475 Julian years. And here he makes 
a curious remark, which is worth quoting as 
illustrating the extent of his scientific knowledge. 
He apologizes for using the popular value for 
the length of the year, 365| days, and says that 
he is well aware that it would have been more 
accurate to use the value 365-^. This is a cor- 
rection in the wrong direction, making the year 
longer than its value, according to the Julian 
ci^lendar, instead of shorter as it really is. The 
explanation evidently is, that he accepted as 
accurate the cycle of Euctemon and Meton, in 
which 235 months, containing in all 6940 days, 
were made equivalent to 19 years. This gives 
the length of a year used by Africanus. He 
computes correctly that the substitution of the 
Metonic for the Julian value of the length of a 
year would make a difference in his calculation 
of six days and a quarter ; and if his astronomy 
is not up to the highest scientific standard of his 
age, his arithmetic is entitled to all praise. In 
like manner he computes that the difference be- 
tween the Metonic value for the length of a 
month, 29^^, (for so the corrupt figures in the 
present text must be corrected) and the common 
value, 29^, is ^ of a day, a quantity which ho 
regards as too small to affect his calculations. 

Another interesting passage in the xp***^**^^ >* 
one in which he treats of the darkness at the 
crucifixion, and shows, in opposition to the 
Syrian historian Thallus, that it was miraculous, 
and that an eclipse of the sun could not have 
taken place at the full moon. Lastly, we mar 
notice his statement that the remains of Jacob s 
terebinth at Shechem, Gen. xxxv. 4, were in his 
time still remaining, and were held in honour; 
and that Jacob's tent had been preserved in 
Edessa until it was struck with lightning in the 
reign of the Emperor Antoninus [Elagabalus ?]. 
Africanus probably had personally visited Edessa, 
whose king, Abgarus, he elsewhere mentions. 

The work in all probability concluded with 
the Doxology, which St. Basil has cited (J)e^r. 
Sand. §. 73, iii. 61) in justification of the form 
of doxology ahy 'Ayl^ Tlv^vfiaTi. 

It remains to speak of another work, the 
ircdrro^, expressly ascribed to Africanus by Euse- 
bius (H. E. vi. 31), Photius (1. c.X Suidas (I. cX 
and Syncellus (p. 359), the last-named writer 
being supposed by Scaliger to have copied his 
statement from the Chronica of Eusebius. Ac- 
cording to this authority, the work consisted of 
nine books ; and it is probably owing to errors 
of transcribers that we now find Photius enume- 
rating 14 and Suidas 24. The work seems to 
have received the fanciful name of Cesti, or 
variegated girdles, frum the miscellaneous cha- 
racter of its contents, which embraced the 
subjects of geography, natural history, medicine, 
agriculture, the art of war, &c. The portions 
that remain have suffered by mutilation and 
addition, different copyists having selected thoea 
parts which related to the subjects in which 
they were interested, and having added precepts 


from later writen. The military precepts hare 
httu published bj TheveDot, Veiet-es Matkematici, 
Pkris, 1693 ; MTeral of the agricultural are in- 
doded in the Geoponica of CaKiianiu Bassna, 
Cambridge, 1704, and an extremely cnrions 
nmmary of some of the medical precepts is 
fiTen by Michael Psellns (Lambecii Cumm, de 
Hi'4. Caes. Vind. rii, 223). Modern critics 
bare been unwilling to ascribe this work to onr 
At'ricanas, on account of its completely secular 
character ; of the repuLsiveness of some of its 
contents, as, for instance, the directions for 
|K#isuaing provisions and welU included in the 
srt of war ; and on account of the superstitious 
reliance on the efficacy of charms, so unlike 
what the critical and sceptical spirit of the letter 
to Origen would dispose us to expect from 
Africanus. And some incredible things, to which 
the writer gives his personal attestation (c !29X 
Isy him open to the charge not merely of cre« 
dality, but want of veracity. It has been held 
that if Julius Africanus were the writer, it must 
have been while he was yet a heathen ; and the 
notice in Suidas has given rise to the conjecture 
that we must distinguish the Libyan Sextus Afri- 
canus, the author of the CeM^ from Julius Afri- 
canas of Palestine, the ecclesiastical writer. But 
tne external evidence for ascribing the Cesti and 
Chnmoi^tgy to the same author is too strong to be 
easily set aside, and is not without some internal 
contirmation. Thus the author of the Ce^ti was 
better acquainted with Syria than with Libya ; 
for he mentions the abundance of a certain kind 
of serpent in Syria, and gives its Syrian name 
( VH. Math. p. 290), but when he gives a Libyan 
word {(wtopoii. p. 226) he does so on second-hand 
testimony. And he was a Christian, for he asserts 
{Qmffin, p. 178) that wine may be kept from 
spoiling by writing on the vessels **the divine 
words, Ta»te and see that the Lord is gracious.'* 
The unlikelihood of Africanus having written 
such a work becomes less if we look u})on hiro 
not a> an eccleaiiastic, but as a Christian philoM)- 
pher, pursuing his former studies atler his cud- 
v«r*ion, ami entering in his note-books many 
thin^ more in accordance with the spirit of his 
own ai^e than of ours. It was probably in his cha- 
racter of philosopher that he presenteti himself 
to the emperor to plead the cause of Emmaus, and 
the-^ books, which Syncellus tells us were dedi- 
cste-1 to the Emperor Alexander, may have been 
pre<«^nte<i to prove his claim to that character. 

The Syrian writers who speak of Africanus as 
a bi\hop also ascribe to him commentaries on the 
NVw Testament (Assemani, /. c. and ii. 129). 
Citation^ purporting to be from Africanus are 
mal^ in the catenae of Macarius on St. Matthew 
(Fabric. B9d. Or. viii. 676X and of Xicetas on St. 
Luke (Mai, Script, let, ix. 724). That he shouM 
hjv* eni^ngei! in such a work is consistent with 
the prii^ giv'en him by Origen as a diligent 
stn<lrnt <if Scripture. 

Ot' works, the ascription of which to Africanus 
b clearly erroneous, we msy mention the Acts uf 
the m:irtvnlom of Symphorosa and her seven 
ron* (Bofland. Actt ^iwt., July 18). The 
spcriouAness of these Acts is abundantly proved 
by S. Btenaife (AnnaL ii. 46). The manuscripts 
■'(t only claim the!«e Acts for Africanus, but also 
aaiert, on the authority of ** .<at;<^ Kusebius the 
iii«tori:in," that he wrote the acts of nearly all 
the martyrs of Rome and of all Italy. Such a 



statement It is needless to discuss. For further' 
information see Fabric. Bibi. Gr. iv. 240, ed. 
Harles. [G. S.] 

AGAPE, a Spanish lady, a disciple of Mar- 
cus of Memphis. From her and her own disciple 
Helpidius Priscillian receired the rudiments of 
his doctrine (Sulp. Ser. Chron. ii. 46 [61]; 
Hieron. Ep. 75 § 3). She was thus one of the 
links between the Gnosticism and Manichaeism of 
the East and the Prisdllianism of Spain. Jerome 
no doubt had her chiefly in view when he spoke 
of ** Gnostics deceiring noble ladies of Spain, 
mingling pleasure with fables, and claiming for 
their own folly the name of knowledge " {Com, 
in £». Ixiv. 4 ; of. /. c). [H.] 

AGAPE (Iren. 7, 135; Epiph. ^a«r. 165, 169). 
[Valentin us.] [H.] 

AGAPETUS, bishop of Rome, was, we art 
told, a Roman by birth, the son of Gordianus a 
priest (Anast. quoted by Clinton, Fasti Romani, 
p. 763 ; Jatfc^ Regesta Pontificwn^ p. 73). He was 
already an old man when, six days after the 
death of Johannes IL he was elected pope at the 
beginning of June, A.D. 535. The election may 
perhaps nave been influenced in his favour by 
iheodahad the Gothic king, whom we find soon 
after employing him as legate to Constantinople. 

On his first accession, however, he began by 
formally reversing an act of Bonifatius II., one oi 
his own immediate predecessors. On th€ death 
of the antipope Dioscorus, a.d. 530, Bonifatius IL 
had stooped to the unnecessary revenge of fulmi- 
nating anathemas against him, and forcing all his 
clergy to subscribe the decree which contained 
them. This decree Agapetus caused to be burnt 
in the midst of the assembled congregation 
(Anast. vol. i. p. 100). 

We next find him entering Constantinople on 
the 19th Feb., a.d. 536 (Clint. F. R. p. 765). 
He was sent thither by Theodahad to avert, if 
possible, the war with which he was threatened 
by the emperor Justinian in revenge for the 
murder of his queen, Amalasontha : and we are 
told that he succeeded in the objects of his mis- 
sion (Anast. vol. i. p. 102). But he certainly 
failed to avert the war ; Justinian, we are told, 
had already incurred such expense as to be un- 
willing to turn back (Liberat. quoted by Baronius, 
Anntiles Eccirsiasticiy vii. p. 314) : and, as a mat- 
ter of fact, Belisarius took Rome within the vear. 
But Agapetus, who had already shown his inde- 
pendence of mind in his correspondence with 
Justinian, probably had other objects in view 
besides the avowed one, which brought him to 
Constantinople. The year before Ant him us, 
who was suspected of Monothelitism, had been 
ap{>ointed Patriarch of Constantinople by the 
influence of Theodora. Agapetus, on his first 
arrival, refuse<i to receive Anthimus unless he 
could prove himself orthodox, and then only as 
bishop of Trebizond, for he was averse to the 
practice of translating bisho|)s. At the s;ime 
time he boldly accused Justinian himself of Mo- 
nophysitism ; who was fain to satisfy him by 
signing a *Mibelius fidei ** and professing himself 
a true Otholic. But the emperor insisted u|)on 
hU commuuicating with Anthimus, and e/en 
threatened him with expulsion from the city if 
he refused. Aga|)etus replied with spirit that 
he thought he was visiting on orthodox prince, 



mod not a second Diocletian. Then the emperor 
confronted him with Anthimos, who was readily 
convicted by his antagonbt. He was formally 
deposed, and Mennas substituted ; and this was 
done without a council, by the single authority 
of the pope Agapetns ; Justinian of course allow- 
ing it, in spite of the remonstrances of Theodora 
(Anast. vol. i. p. 102 ; Theophanes, Chnmogr. p. 
184). Agapetns followed up his victory by de- 
nouncing the other heretics who had collected at 
Constantinople under the patronage of Theodora. 
He received petitions against them from the 
Eastern bishops, and from the ** monks " in 
Constantinople, as the Archimandrite coenobites 
were beginning to be called (Baronius, vii. p. 
322); and would no doubt have proceeded to 
demand their expulsion, when he was cut short 
by death, on the 21st April, A-D. 536 (Clint. 
F. R. p. 765). His body was taken to Rome 
and there buried in St. Peter's basilica, Sept. 
17th. There are five of his letters remaining : — 
1. July 18th, ▲.D. 535, To Caesarius, bishop of 
Aries, about a dispute of the latter with bishop 
Contumeliosus (Mansi, viii. p. 356). 2. Same 
date, to same, " de augendis alimoniis pauperum " 
(M. viii. p. 855). 3. Sept. 9th, ▲.D. 535, Reply 
to a letter from African bishops to his prede- 
cessor Johannes (M. viii. p. 848). 4. Same date, 
reply to Reparatus, bishop of Carthage, who had 
congratulated him on his accession (M. viii. p. 
850). ^ 5. March 13th, A.D. 536, to Peter, bishop 
of Jerusalem, announcing the deposition of An- 
thimus and consecration of Mennas (M. viii. 
p. 921). [G. H. M.] 

AGAPETUS, bishop of the Macedonians at 
SvNNADA. The sect was fiercely persecuted by 
Theodosius, the Catholic prelate, whose motive 
was not to enforce orthodoxy but to extract 
money. During his absence from Synnada 
Agapetus convened the clergy and laity of his 
sect and persuaded them to accept the Homoou- 
sion. Having thus united the whole people of 
Synnada in a common creed, he took possession 
of the churches and the episcopal throne, from 
which Theodosius on his return was unable to 
oust him. (Socr. vii. 3.) [L.] 

AGAPETUS, bi&hop of Rhodes, one of the 
metropolitans to whom the Emperor Leo wrote 
res{)ecting the death of Proterius. His answer 
is extant (Labb. Cone. iv. 1891, ed. Coleti). His 
name ap}>eai*s affixed to the encyclical Epistle of 
the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 459, directed 
against Simony (t6. v. 49). [L.] 

AGAPETUS (or AGAPIUS) (1) Bishop 
of SeleL'CIa, metropolis of Isauria, present at 
the councils of Kicaea and Antioch, A.D. 341. 
(Labbe, Condi, ii. 58, 586.) 

(2) bishop oi Apamea, succeeded his brother 
Marcel 1 us in the reign of Arcadius c. 398. He 
was a disciple of St. Marcian, and had been con- 
spicuous for eminence in asi'etic virtue. Theodo- 
ret speaks of him with high commendation, and 
bestows on him the epithet 6 vayfv^fios (Theod. 
//. E. iv. 28; v. 27 ; lei. Hist. c. 3). [E. V.] 

(8) A friend and corresjH>ndent of Chryso- 
stom, whom he addresses with much respect, al' 
S«<ri/Afi^arc fcol Bavfuuridrttrt. He appears to 
have offered to visit Chrysostom in his banishment 
at Cucusus, but he begs him to content himself 
with writing. **The season was unfavourable. 


and the Isaurian banditti rendered the Journey 
hazardous " (Chrys. £p, xz, Ixxiii). (iL V.] 

AGAPIUS, bishop of Caesarea, succeeded 
Theotecnus, towards the end of the 3rd century. 
He is praised by his contemporary Eusebius, 
from his personal knowledge, for the laborious 
character of his episcopate, the minute over- 
sight of his diocese, and his great liberality to 
the poor. Eusebius' friend, the saint and martyr 
Pamphilus, was ordained presbyter by him 
(Euseb. B E. vii. 32 ; Niceph. vL 37> [L V.] 

AGAPIUS QKymos), one of Manes' twelve 
disciples (Petrus Siculus, Hi»t. Man. xvi. ; Pho- 
tius, Centra Man. i. 14). Petrus Siculus and 
Photius {Sbii.) mention a book of his entitled 
Heptalogu9 (cf. also the Greek form of abjura- 
tion, ap, Cotelier's Patres Apost. L p. 544) ; and 
Photius {BAiioth. <k)d. 179,) gives an account of 
two other works of his, respectively containing 
twenty-three, and one hundred and two chapters. 
These two works were dedicated to a female fol- 
lower named Urania, and maintained the doc- 
trine of the two principles, the sinful nature of 
the body, and the duty of abstinence from flesh, 
wine, and marriage. He seems to have studi- 
ously veiled his ideas under Christian terms, but 
to have attacked the Old Testament and to have 
made great use of the apocryphal Acts of the 
twelve Apostles, and especially those of St. An- 
drew. Photius gives some praise to his style, 
and allows him to be not devoid of controversial 
power. Photius adds that in some parts of 
these works he seems to have combated the 
errors of the Arian Eunomius, (jidx*<r0eu 8^ 
9oKt7 wphs riiv Ehvdfiiov iraicoSo^fay,) ; but this 
is probably only his own conjecture, as Agapius 
could hanlly have been pei'soually acquainted 
with Manes, if he had lived on so far into the 
fourth century. [E. B. C] 

AGATHA, a virgin martyred at Catana 
in Sicily under Decius a.d. 251, Feb. 5, accord- 
ing to her Acta ; but under Diocletian according 
to the Marty rol. and Aldheim {De Virgin. 22); 
mentioned by Pope Damasus a.d. 366 {Ctxrm. v.), 
and by Venantius Fortunatus, c. A.D. 580; in- 
serted in the canon uf the Mass by Gregory the 
Great according to Aldheim (tU supra, and see 
also S. Greg. M. Diai. iii. 30); and commemo- 
rated in a homily by Methodius c. A.D. 900. 
Her name is in the Carthag. Calendar of c. 
A.D. 450, in Ruinart, p. 695. Her legend is 
the not uncommon one, in the heathen perse- 
cutions, of an attempt by the Roman judge, 
in this case a Consular named Quintianus, to 
obtain possession of her person and wealth 
by means of the persecuting edicts against Chris- 
tians; changed, when he was foiled by her un- 
flinching purity, into hideous attempts to out- 
rage her in the common stews, followed by cruel 
tortures, and ended by his causing her to be 
rolled nake<l over live coals mixed with p(»t- 
sherds, under which torments she died. St. 
Peter is said to have once miraculously healed 
her wounds, when the judge refused to allow 
them to be dressed. A church is said to have 
been dedicated to her at Rome by Pope Sym- 
machus about a.d. 500 ; and a second, re- 
built there by Ricimer A.D. 460, was enrirhed 
with her relics by Gregory the Great (Dial. Ui. 
30). Gregory II. also built a church dedicated 


to ber at Eohm in 726. She \s likewise honoured 
u ptttroneM of the island of Malta. And her veil, 
curried in proceaaion, is said to hare frequently 
sTerted eruptions of Mount Etna from the town 
of Catana (butler's Livga of Saintt), " Her name 
n still in the black letter calendar in the English 
Prarer-book; and her ''letters" were regarded 
ia the Middle Ages as a charm against fire. See 
also the H<Hnily against Peril of Idolatry ^ p. iii. ; 
sad below under St. Aoneb. [A. W. H.] 

AGATHIA8, one of the most interesting and 
rainable of the Byzantine historians, whose his- 
tory embraces a period of six yean of the reign 
ef Justinian, from A.D. 553 to A.D. 559. Agathias 
was bom, as he himself tells us in the preface to 
kis history, at Myrina, a small town in AeoIiH, 
at the point where the rirer Pythicus enters the 
Elaitic Gulph. His father's name was Memno- 
nins, his mother's Pericha, the former a rheto- 
rician, the Utter a woman praised for her aflfec- 
tiua and wisdom, but who died when her child 
was three years old. An epigram written by 
ker s<m makes her lament the fact that she was 
buried away from her native country in the 
dost of Constantinople, so that it is probable 
that Memnonius had removed to the metropolis 
for the purposes of his profession soon after the 
birth of his child, and that Agathias would 
receive his education there. That education, 
however, had also been carried on at Alexandria, 
and it was not till the year 554 that, after some 
time spent in that dty, the youth returned to 
Constantinople {Hut. ii. 16). He would then 
be about seventeen or eighteen years of age, for 
the probability b that, as conjectured in the 
short notice of his life preBxed to his history, he 
was bom about A.D. 536 or 7. On his return 
to Coaxt Autinople he devoted himself to the study 
of the Roman law, and was a successful pleader 
ia the courts, a circumstance from which he has 
r^eived. like so many others of that time, the 
name of scholasticus, or lawver. 

It has been doubted whether Agathias was a 
Christian or a heathen, and it must be allowed 
that the latter supposition is favoured by the 
ab»eoce of all specific confession of Christian 
truth in his writings; by the manner in which 
he speaks of the protomartyr Stephen, whom he 
refers to as '^jaicf'' to have voluntarily ex|>oscd 
kim't«lf to danger and death by stoning for be- 
hoof o( those who favoured the Christians (iii. 5) ; 
by hi^ allusions to the latter as if he did not 
belooe to them (iii. 24); by his frequently speaking 
of Goij simply as the h leptirruty ; by his satirical 
sT'-flunt of those controversies in which one Ura- 
Bio* was wont to engage with regard to the 
diTine nature, controverhies from which the com- 
hit4jit« departed, having neither given nor re- 
ceived any benefit, but having been only turned 
from friends to enemies of one another (ii. 29); 
sail by his evident admiration of the pagan 
phiIoM>pher» (ii. 12^ On the other hand, how- 
ever, his adoption of the Christian sentiment of 
Matt. xvi. 26, and that almost in the very words 
ef Scripture, **for what shall we be profited 
though we gain the whole Persian empire, but 
kwir our own souls'* (iii. 12); his poems to the 
.Archangel Michael ; his praise of the Franks as 
tU Chris^tians, as entertaining the most c-orrect 
•eatim^nts with regard to God, and as celebrating 
the same feasta as im do (i. 2) ; together with 



his general tone when speaking of the Greek or 
Barbarian idolatry, might suggest the opposite 
conclusion. The writer of the life already alluded 
to infers from his general tone in speaking of 
the religious errors and rites of heathen nations, 
that he must have learned toleration in th^ 
Christian school of adversity and persecution for 
his own faith, and that he had embraced Christi- 
anity, if not from conviction, at least from a 
desire to escape the violence to which, as a 
heathen, he would have been exposed. But tole- 
ration was not then learned in such a school, 
and what of it Agathias exhibits is rather that 
of the philosopher than the earnest believer. It 
seems probable, upon the whole, that he had 
gained from Christianity those just notions of 
God and religion to which he often gives expres- 
sion, but that he had not embracad its more 
peculiar truths. 

The profession of the law had no attractions 
for him. He pursued it under the pressure of 
necessity, and he bitterly mourns over being 
obliged to sit from morning till evening in the 
royal porch turning over law-books, troubled by 
crowds, and involved in the causes of the courts, 
when he would so much rather have been en- 
gaged in reading the writings of the wise ancients, 
in the enjoyment of that freedom from care 
which was so necessary to literary pursuits (iii. 
1). He was, indeed, mainly the man of letters. 
His first literary efforts were poetical. He wrote 
a number of epigrams or sonnets on a great 
variety of subjects, and published them, along 
with other short pieces of a similar kind, in an 
anthologia. Many of these have been preserved, 
and are appended to his history. 

It was at the age of thirty that Agathias 
turned his attention more particularly to his- 
tory itself, of which he entertained the most 
lofty and just ideas. It seemed to him that it 
was that storehouse of the past from which 
lessons for the present were to be drawn, and 
that it was the great encourager of noble deeds. 
Previous historians, too, with the exception of 
Procopius, whom he greatly admired, afforded 
him little satisfaction. He thought them unjust 
to the departed, and too laudatory of the living. 
Above all, the times were eventful, illustrating 
even that sympathy which Keander has said to 
often shows itself in critical periods between 
nature and roan. Everywhere war; the northern 
barbariaDs desolating Italy with their incur- 
sions ; Africa a scene of tumult ; Asia not less 
so ; comets appearing in the sky ; and earth- 
quakes laying waste the cities of the East and 
the inlands of the Aegean with a frequency and 
a terribleness of destruction which has never 
been exhibited since. Agathias was, even as a 
young man, struck with these things (ii. 16) ; 
and, partly under the impression which they 
produced, partly at the solicitation of friends 
who had no doubt observed the impression, and 
been both by it and otherwise convinced of his 
fitness for the task, resolved to devote himself 
to history, and especially to continuing the //ts- 
tory of Procopius (Praef. and iv. 29). The prm- 
ciples upon which he resolved to proceed, and 
which he has fully stated in his preface, were 
in a high degree excellent, and the calm, refieu- 
tive, even philosophic, tone of what he has 
written, proves that he adhered to them. He 
is undoubtedly one of the ablest and most trust- 



worthy writers of his time, and he is all the 
more interesting that he stands on the verr 
verge of the period when the last rays of light 
were aboat to be swallowed up in the long dark- 
ness that followed. He wrote in five books, 
taking up the thread of events at the point 
where Procopius had dropped it, and beginning 
with the defeat and death of Teias the last king 
of the Goths, and the victorious progress of the 
eunuch Narses, one "among the few," says 
Gibbon, " who have rescued that unhappy name 
from the contempt and hatred of mankind" 
{History of the Roman Empire^ c. xliii.). From 
this he pursues the story of the campaign of 
Narses against the Franks and the Alemanni, 
then turns to the war of Rome against the 
Persians and Huns, dwelling much upon the his- 
tory of Chosroes, and breaking off with the in- 
ternal dissensions of the Huns and their destruc- 
tion of one another at the instigation of Justinian. 
He did not begin to write till after the death of 
Justinian and the accession of Justin the younger, 
A.D. 565 ; the fourth book was not written till 
after the death of Chosroes in a.d. 577 ; and 
the publication of the whole probably soon fol- 
lowed, how soon it is not easy to say, for 
the y^ar of his death is assigned by some to 
A.D. 582, by others to a date not earlier than 
A.D. 594. 

Agathias is valuable for the facts which he 
mentions, many of which are not to be found 
elsewhere. He has been largely depended on by 
Gibbon for that part of the reign of Justinian to 
which his history relates. At the same time 
his notices of the religion and customs of the 
nations that he speaks of are highly important. 
His style has been characterized by Vossius as 
tersa et fiorida {de Hist. Grace,, lib. ii. p. 270). 
It is, however, marked much more by the latter 
than the former quality, being often stilted and 
pretentious, so that Gibbon has not unaptly 
spoken of his " prolix declamation " (c. xliii.). 
Partly, perhaps, because of the honour in which 
he was held as a historian, but mainly because of 
more substantial benefits conferred by him upon 
his native city, he was along with his father 
Mem nonius honoured by it with a statue {vita 
Agathiae, p. 16). 

Agathias may be consulted for such particulars 
as the following : the six years, a.d. 55^^-559 ; 
the wars of the Empire with the Alemanni, 
Goths, &c, his accounts of which he often inter- 
sperses with iatere!«ting remarks on the manners, 
customs, and i*eiigion of these nations ; the wai* 
with the Persians, where he takes occasion to 
describe the religion of Zoroaster ; the camfKiigns 
of Belisarius and Narses ; the character, history, 
and fate of Chosroes, king of the Persians ; the 
terrible earthquakes and plagues which desolated 
the East in the middle of the 6th century ; to- 
gether with many incidental notices of cities, 
forts, and rivers, philosophers ana subordinate 

His history was published in Greek at Leyden, 
by Vulcanius, a.d. 1594. The same scholar 
afterwards publi.shed separately a I.atin transla- 
tion of it. Both the Greek text and the Latin 
transi ition were again published together at 
Paris, A.D. 1660; but the best edition is that of 
Ii. G. Niebuhr, in the Corpus Script. Hist. By- 
xant. The Latin translation, and the notes of 
this edition, ai*e those of Vulcanius. QV. ]M.] 


AGATHO, bishop of Rome; originally a 
Sicilian monk, succeeded Domnus, A. p. 678 
(in Jnne or July, Jaffe's JRegesta Fontifcum, 
p. 166). The event of his reign was the 
aixth oecumenic council at Constantinople, the 
summons to which was sent by Constantino Po- 
gonatns during the pontificate of Domnus, but 
arrived after his death. In A.D. 679, prelimi- 
nary metropolitan synods were held in the eccle- 
siastical provinces of the Western Church, and 
among the rest one at Hatfield, in England, pre- 
sided over by Theodoms of Canterbury (Beda, 
H. E, iv. 17). Agatho, we find from a letter of 
his own, had hoped that Theodorus would attend 
his synod at Rome, to be held in the spring of 
the next year, and would go as one of the dele- 
gates from the Western Church to Constanti- 
nople. But Theodorus declined the invitation. 
He was just then involved in a dispute with 
Wilfrith, bishop of York ; and hearing that Wil- 
frith was on hb journey to Rome to plead his 
cause in person, he sent one Cenwald thither, to 
arrive if possible before him, and give his version 
of the matter in dispute. The synod of the 
Western Church assembled in the autumn of A.D. 
679, and sat till the following spring. We hear 
of three sessions : — 1. October, A.D. 679, present 
16 bishops, in which the affairs of the British 
Church were generally discussed, and in which 
probably Cenwald was heard (Wilkins, i. p. 45). 
2. Present more than 50 bishops and priests, in 
which Wilfrith's petition was received (Eddius, 
Va. Wiifr. 29). 3. March 27th, A.D. 680, pre- 
sent 125 bishops, in which Wilfrith*s acquittal 
was pronounced, and he allowed to take his seat 
among them (Edd. 51), while they proceeded to 
choose delegates for the Council at Constanti- 
nople : — ^bishops Abundantius of Paternum, Jo- 
hannes of Rhegium, and Johannes of Portus. 
These they entrusted with a commendatory letter 
to the emperor, in which it was stated that the 
legates were not empowered to argue about un- 
certainties, but only to define and defend what 
was certain and immutable. To these legates 
from the council, Agatho added some others to 
represent himself personally. These were Theo- 
dorus, archbishop of Ravenna, who had newly 
reconciled his see with that of Rome, two priests, 
a deacon and a sub-dencon, and some monks. He 
sent by them a private letter to the cmf^ror, 
in which he ai)ologize<l for having been obliged 
to send such unlearned men, eridently with re- 
ference to Theodorus of Canterbury, '* the philo- 
sopher," whom he had wished to send, asserted 
the supremacy of the Roman see over the Eastern 
Church, and the absolute infallibility of its bishopa, 
and concluded by Having that if the council were 
to agree in heterodox decrees, he and the Western 
Church should hold fast by the old faith. 

The two bodies of delegates travelled together, 
and did not reach Constantinople, where their 
coming was anxiously expected, till the 10th of 
September, A.D. 680 (Baron. riiL p. 682). Eight 
days after they were honourably received in the 
Blachernal, and on the 7th of November the 
Council began its sittings in the chamber called 
Trullus of the Imperial palace. The proceedings 
of the Council will be found elsewhere. [Dicr. 
OF Cur. Ant. art. * Constantinople, Sixth Coun- 
cil of.*] The Western legates seem to have 
strictly adhered to Pope Agatho's instructions, 
and to have confined themselves to protesting 

•glint tba mdlag of cntalo puugM ttmn tha 
aihcn <a (aroDT of Haoalhcliiiiiii, which ther 
■id nn foq^ NanrthdM, in the HteDtti 
iittiBg tb* nile WH tnrn*d in thtir fiiTonr by 
" ' 1 afOcorgiiu, patriarch of Coututi- 

wofit : aod it doai 

Id hive b«FD t) 


lamllUUBg to tha Wi 
liwir Tictsrr inTolTcd tha ■Dithtnutiutios of 
toft HoBoriBi, MM ef Agatho'i predMaHon, 

Agatho jiut tiTwl through tha khIoiu of the 
Coancil. It broka up on tha 16tb Sept. lO. 
•181. ud he died tb« 10th Jan. a.d. 682, befon 
the return of hi* vidoriani dalegntei to lUij. 
(Jade*! Sagttta Pomtijkum, pp. 160, 167 ; Bann 
kiu, .iwufal Eaifiailiri, toI. riii. pp. S&9-7I6.) 
Eight lettora and decreea of hii an eitaot. — 
L GinoB pririlagaa to Wnrmonth Abbej. at tha 
laqscrt of Wmop Badncing (Beds. H, E. iT. 18). 
J. To Tbfodonia of Karenna, iniillnt! him to 
Bome, AKsnlli, Vii. TkadoH, 4, in Maratorl'i 
JifrwAaUuma&nptorvi. 3.&4. The leltera 
nremd ta abore, to tha Emperor CoutantiDc 
(Uaul. iL pp. 334, ZBe> 5. Drcna giving pH- 
Tilegta to SL Pater'i, Hadeahuuted (Pet«r- 
hmuch) (Mim. AkjI. 1. p. £6). 6. Ditto lo 
Haihnm and Ripon Uonuleriea (Eddioa, Vil. 
Vilfridi, ib, *B). T. Dilto to St. Paul'), London, 
■t tha reqncit of Eareatimldi ita hiihop (Jtfsii. 
Ja^ iii. p. 299> 8. Letter to the UDJienal 
Chnrch, claiming for ill papal decree* the an- 
tbaritT of St. Peter himaetf (GntUan. i. Ditt. IS, 
c 2>. [O. H. M.] 

AGATHOPODES, more properlj AOA- 
TUOPUB, a daaoon of Antiorh, nimed Rhi 
Aptbopoa, ooa of the two companiotii of St. 
IgBitioa 1b hh JonriMf to hii martjrdi 
Roue, mud ena of the lutbon of the A:ia t 
Burt Tz^om (S. Ignat. Episi. ad fiitifim. ei at 
ato'^A.,' T. Smith in frarf. ad Acta S. /gn.); 
bimMir howcTFT not Itnowo to hare been ■ mar' 
tjrr, although in Baronioi' Marlgrolai}/ (April 
2iy He appear* In the lint Mt of Ps ' 
IfHtian apiitlH ai an "elect man," nrh 
-nwnBod life" and followed Ignatiua 
erria (ad l-hitaJtIpk. 11); and u bo«piwblj 
TKeiTcd br the Church of Smvnu (jut Stnym. 
1"). He la reproduced in the KCf>nd tet ol 
tbariout epiatlat (oJ Tart. ID; ad Ant. Vi; at 
ru,p. 1S> [A. W. H.] 

AOATHOPUS. aement of Alemndrii 
{Hnm. iiL { SB, p. 538) quotea Valantinue frum 
" hii epiitle to Agilhopni." I. Von and olheri 
■ilhoat reaaon identify thii otharviM aoknovri 
prvin with the Rbeoa Agnthopna menlionad 
^i*. At Vo_ gbHrva, the name ia found in 
•trcral iucriptiona. [H.] 

At;EUUS af^iean to hare been tha imme- 

Tatiu bndr at ConaUntinnple, a.d, Hb, aod In 
tare held ^ii m* forty yean till hii death in 
3M. He inBerKl during the firm prnei-ution 
>f (ha HoiDDniuiau by Haordoniui. deacrib^^J br 
Sntntu, and fled from ConiUntfaople (Socr. 
H. F.. ii. 38). Aa a Homooniian he «u sIk per- 
■ardted by Valeaa. and baniihed by him (Socr. 
e. E. iT. B ; Sox. H. E. Ti. 9). Vtnenbic for hi- 
ap. ki< aufferinp for the orthodoi failh, and Ihs' 
ipaitnHi aimplicity of hi) lift, he waa coniulletl 
t< Sactariw <At ■«'l tiiw wltrii iiiAffta) 
vkn Tbaodoain* kad i^iened hli plan far re- 
iWiH pWM t* t^ dinM flhoreh in 3$3. 


Donhtlng hie ubility in dlipatation, Ageiini de- 
puted hu leetor, Siainnini. a fellow-pupil of tha 
timperor Julian under Uaiimni, to reprritnt 
iilm. The mult was liiToanble to the NoTa- 
llnna, who were acknowledged ai orthodox, and 
permitted (o hold their meetlnn within the dly 
(Soer. T. 10; Soi. riL ia> When near hii end, 
Ageliut named Sislnniua aa hli inccesaor. Thil 
^ru diipkailDg to the people, who dolred Mar- 

iiuance they owed the reetoration of their liberty 
.if wonhlp. AgeliuB yielded to their wiahea, on 
the condition that if Siiinolui outllTed Uareiao 
|ja ebonld b« the oeit biahop {Socr, t. 21 ; Soa. 
rii. H i ainlon, F. S. i. 509, IL *43). \&. V.] 

AOENVETUB (Inm. U : cf. 5e> [Talsn- 
riFun; EpiPHAHEa.] [H.] 

AGERATUS (Iran. 6, 135; Epiph. Batr. 165, 
169; cf. Aact. Val. ap. £plph. 1B8b). [VaLeiT- 
tlHUS.] [H.] 

AGIL or ST. AISLE (quem pnptw celarei 

«D of Agnoald, councillor of HiUabert, prince of 
Burgundy and Auatiuia, and hia wife Oenteria. 
Hii father wu on friendly tenni with the eml- 
dent Celtic mlsaioDary, doLUHBA^lua, who per- 
suaded him lo derote hi* child at an early age tn 
<he momstic life. Accordingly ha eatered the 

There he 
the Frai 

tha Tear *.D 
devoted himaelf (o *tudr and p . . 
year A.i>. 613 waa deputed hr a lynodof 

■ ■ 'urcheitoi '— 

d prayer. 

ihbot of Loienil, o: 
rarii. After Uhouric_ 
little iucceia, he waa requeated by Dngobert, th* 
lucceiaor of Clothiire, to undertake the euper- 
intendenceofa nelgbbouring monaatery. Accord- 
ingly he act out thither nbont the year A.D. SSG, 
ind surrounding faimielf with Dumeroiu ardent 
followen continued till an advanced period of hia 
life to carry nu the miiaioiury opentiont, which 
hail been lo aucceufnllj begun by Colnmbanna. 
iAda SS. Ord. Bated, ii. 303-^112.) [G. V. U.] 

AQILBERT, hiihop of Dorcheiler and after- 
ward) of Ps.T\i. He appean iu Bede lint ■■ 
" punlifei quidnm, nitioDe OsUu*," from which 
the author* of the Galtin Oiriatiawi conciada 
■hat he had been consecnted by French blshopa 
wilh..Dt anr we. After hit comecntlon ha studied 
I Irelawl,' whence he came Into WeHu abont I 
le year <M8. and vaa a|<polnted by king Cen- 

alch auccetMir to Birinu* in tha blahopric nf 
tha Weit Saiona. In Ihit position h* continned 

r aeTernl yeara, hut being unnble to learn Eng- 

ih, Cenwalch, who knew no other Uagiwgt, 
introduced another biihop, Wiui, to whom he 

own pru 
in 664, h 

<t Ag.ll 

t tha >; 

h Wilfrid, and hi* 
nod of Strenshall, 
' There he received 

leii Wilfrid Cwhom 
ordained prleit) at Compitgne, and w!i 
the year 688, ma.le biihop of Pari*. Be 
otion to the lee of Pani befure 
of Willrid. Canwalch. who hi 
n< luarrelled with Wina, ini: 
1 to We«aai, but he waa anw 
l«>a Puia, which ia nid to have 

nntlr* pinn. and Kot li<i ncpbe* Ltntberim, 
who »u made b>»bop of Dorchtiter in S70. Id 
ruined Tlifodorui on hit wa; 

of Pari 

. Agnelln, 

from Rod 

Uched to a single chi 
probably of th« year 670. The year of 
UDnknowD,butltt«ik place In th* monisier]- 
of Jouarre on the Ilth of October. It i> qne>- 
tionable whether he i> the Agilbert who. accord- 
ing to Fredegar, wu Knt in 680 bj throin to 
the doke Martin, to deceive him bj taking a fiils« 
mth on an cmptT reliquary, (t. Fredegsr, ii. S7 ; 
■p. Bouquet, ii. «1; Bade, //. E. iii, 7, 2,V-28; 
Ir.l, 13;0allia Chriitiana, lub. sed. Parii; Ed- 
diiu, r. WilMdi, i. lil.) [S.] 

AGNELLUS, uchhiahop of Rarenni, wai 
bora A.D. 486, and held h<> bishooric froio i^ 
to 569 i and dit 
of noble birth, 
joyed the farour of Nara». who on the defeat of 
the Qothi made orer to him all the property 
poaKKied by them in Rarenna, On the death of 
hia wife he eotered holy orders, and became proe- 
ficfiuof the church ofSt. Agatha ; and in 556 waa 
eanKcrnted bitihop. He reconciled the churchei 
that had been polluted by Arian services in the 
Ume of Theodoric, huilt the church of St. Gre- 
gory, and adorned otheri with giOa and oroa- 
mcnta. He wai thniiathoT of EpiaMidt BatioM 
Fidei ad Armmium againit Arianiem {BM. Pair. 
Colon. 1618, vol. *. p. 642). He waa buried in 
tbe church of St. Agatha, and hit epitaph it 
giTen by Muiatori, p. I8:.'3, I. RaTeunaa. and 
Ondin. (Caw, Hitl. Lit. i. p. 529; Clinton, 
■"" " ■* p. 1443; Rubeua, 

[¥. v.] 

vain elTorta lirst made tn overcome her faith by 
rile outrage; celebrated by St. AmbroK {J)t 
Ogk. i. 41, De Virg. ad Mansell. i. fl), St. Jerome 
(£/>>'](. 97 ad Denutnad.), St. Auguttin (_Strm. 
STi, 286, and 354), Sulp. Serer. (Ihal. ii. U), 
Prodentlua (.-((il Zrefilntr, IJT.). Venaot. For- 
iunaliu {Poem. vij. iii. 35), Aldhelm (Ot I'l'i- 
^'n.){ and by her Acta in Srriac in Atuemani, 
Act. Marl. ii. 148 aq. ; besidea Acta falsely 
■ttribnted to St. Aiuhnne, a doubtful homily 
of St. Maiim. Tanrin., and some venes (tuettion- 
ably aasigned to Pope Dsmaaus. And her name 
ii in the Cvlhag. CaL ofc. a.d. 450, Jan. 21 ; in 
Ruinnrt p. 695. Her legend resembles that of 
St. Agatha, 8.iTe that St. Agnea had made a vow 
of virginity, and (bat her tuitorj, and not at 
fitit the Judge, were bar persecutors. One who 
tried to outr^e her in the brothel to nhich 
the wat aent wn.4 gtruck blind, and then healed 

1. 878). * [A. W. H.] 

AGKO£A (Iren. 108> [BuSeUOtaij ; 

OpHiTta.] [H.] 

AQN0£TAE C^yvrai, ttmn iyni^ to 

ht ignorant of), it a name af^ied to two aecta 
who denied the omaiKacnce either of Ood th< 
Father, or of God the Son is hi* atata of humi- 

I. The lirtt were a (Miction of the Arieni, 
and called from Ennomina and Theophroniui 
" Ennomio-ThtvpArmianl" (Socratet, ff. E. v. 
24). Their leader, THEOPMROMIUt of Cappsdoda, 


[Tnder the assumptiau of being deeply vemed in 
the terms of Scripture, he attempted to prove 
that though God It acqnaintsd with the preienl, 
the past, and the fiiture, Ai> kmnrleiie on Utit 
tabjtcii II not tha wme in dtgree, and it tuhject 
to aofflff Itind of mvtation. As thia hypotbesia 
appeared positively absurd to the Eunomiana, 

Ajpmflai or T/umi*- 

II. Better known are 
Hiiii", in the Monophyi 
iith century. Themibtids, deacon of Al'i 


111 (no 

all I 

ngs, e 

re) of 

iiitafiou of liDowledge, and waa ignnrant of 
iny thingt, especially the day of judgment, 
licb the Father alone knew (Uark liiL 33). 
The question of Chriit oonceraing Laume, 
" mere have ye laid him i" (John li. 84), 
likewise implied ignorance of this fact. The 
majority of the Monophrtiles rejected this view. 

n (Jhri! 

' of kno 

oal tr 

I beheaded, 

lurch a 



:, said to hare been built in the 
time of Constaotina the Great, was repaired by 
Pope Honorius, i.D. U2,>.e38. and another was 
bnilt at Rome by Innocent X, (Aisemini, A'sl. 
if.trt. ii. 154, 155). See also A'.-t. SS. Jan. 31, 
00 which day al» her name itandi in the binck 
letter calendar of the Eugliih Prayer-book. 
Bnada and Usuard place her day on Jan. 23; the 
MntBiag. and Msnaea, on July 5. it is on* of (bur 

„, nd they called the followe 
Ainailiu:. The orthodoi, who might from the 

have inferred two kind) of knowledge, a perlect 
divine, aud an imperfect human admitting nl 
growth (Luke ii. 52), neverthelest rejected lh( 
view of the Agno^tae. as milking too wide a rap- 
ture between the two natures, and generally 
understood the famoua passage In Mark of tb( 
offidal ignorance only, iunsmnch a> Christ did 
not choote to reveal to hii disciplet the day ol 
judgment, aud thus appeared ignorant for a win 
purpose (hbt' oiiiorofilar). The queation con- 

the Je»i and the intention to increase the ^eG< 
of the miracle. Eologiui, patriarch of Aleian 
dria, wrote against the Agnofltae a treatise or 
theabsoluU knowledge of Christ, of "hich Pho 
tiua baa pruerved bvge eitract*. SophiuDiW 


pitrUrch of JeniMlem, pronounced the anathema 
M TnemUtioa. 

Agno^ism was rerived hj the Adoptionists 
hi the 8th century. [Adoptioniots.] Felix of 
Ur^l maintained the limitation of the know- 
ledge of Chrict according to his human nature, 
tad appealed to Mark xiii. 32. 

Gallandi, BibL Pair. zii. p. 634 ; Mansi, Cone, 
xi. 502 ; Leont. Byz. De SectiSf Actio X.^ cap. iii. ; 
Photina, Cod, 230 (ed. Bekk., p. 284); Baronius, 
A^mai. ad A.D. &35 ; Walch, Hist, der Ketzereien, 
Ttii. 644-684 ; Baur, Lehre v, der Dreieinigkeit, 
itc, ii. p. 87 ff. ; Domer, Eniwtcklungsgeachichte, 
itcy iL p. 172 f. ; comp. Mokophtsites. [P. S.] 

AGOBABD (in Lyonese dialect Agohaud), S., 
Archbi^op of Lyons, holding a high rank in the 
iotellectnal and political movements of his age, 
was bom in 779 of Gallic parents settled in 
Spain, and was removed into Gallia Narbonensis 
in 782. (Mabillon, Iter Hal, p. 68, quoting a 
MS. note, probably inthe autograph of Agobard 
him^lf. See Hid. Liter, de la France^ iv. 567.) 
Thence he was brought to Lyons by Archbishop 
Leidrad in 798, who ordained him priest in 
8o4. Subsequently, probably in 813, Leidrad, 
oppressed by age and infirmities, gave him a 
share in the administration of his diocese, and 
epbcopal ordination; when he retired into a 
monastery in 816, Agobard was, ** with the con- 
sent of the em{ieror, and the entire Synod of 
Gallican Bishops,'* appointed his successor. (Ado, 
Chron, cf. Hug. Flarin. Chron. Virdun.) "Some 
persons objected to the appointment on the 
ground that Agobard had been consecrated by 
three bishops in the see of Lyons at the order of 
Lridrad, whereas the canons lay down that 
there should not be two bishops together in one 
city, and that a living bishop should not choose 
ki« own successor." The weight of this charge 
will de}iend, says Henschen (Act. SS. /loll. Jun. 
L 740), on whether we adopt the reading of the 
t«zt CAo/Yf>isco/nis= Suffragan Bishop, or Rai- 
a lul's conject ure Coepisrojtfu ~ Coadjutor Bishop, 
vhich Utter title would imply a right of suc- 
ccA'ion. The whole transaction is represented 
in a difr<*rent, and, perhaps, a truer li.i;ht in 
Oiilit Christ, iv. 55, where a quotation from a 
GrenobU breviary is transcribed at length. 
Aoconltng to this document the emi^eror and 
•«.•«« few bishops sup|M)rted Agobard*s nomina- 
\\f*xi, while the great body of Gallican bishops 
0{ipr«ei it, met in lynod at Aries, and decided 
that Leidrad should return to his see, an<l that 
ft-r the future no more co^'pist'opi should be 
ippotnted. In spite of this decision Agobard 
•till retained bis see, and ruled it vigorously and 

Hm first polemical attack was against the 
•ntin^s of Felix, Bishop of Crgel, the heresiarch 
of til* Adopt ii»ni?tts (see ^Ittsheiin, ed. Stubbs, i. 
''IT), who had been banished by Charles to 
Lyons, where he had lately died. Agobard*s 
treat ijie, addressed to the emperor, tended to ' 
fiTive that the heresy of Felix was equivalent , 
to Ne:«toriani.<«m in a milder form. It is chiefly 
aoifriiri from the fathers. 

Ot the same character is a series of four works 
agiiast the Jews ^ho appear to have flocked to 
Lyons about this time in great numbers under 
tte shelter of Loui»*s protection. The first is a 
itraace to the emperor against their inso- 



lent bearing and outrages against the Chnstians ; 
the second opposes their superstitions; in the 
third he addresses Adalhard, Abbat of Corbie, 
and other chief ofiicert of the palace, asking how 
he ought to deal with the case of Jewish servants 
postulating baptism against their masters' con- 
sent ; the fourth is a letter addressed to Nebri- 
dins. Bishop of Narbonne, complaining of the 
disadvantages suffered by Christians in their 
commercial relations with Jews. 

Other works in this class are tracts exposing 
and refnting the popular superstitions of the 
day (1.) Against the law of Oondobad, and the 
impious cont^ts tcAicA spring from it ; (2.) On 
thunder and hail, popularly ascribed to sorcery ; 
(3.) Against the Judgment of Qod , . , , or those 
trho hold the damnable opinion that the truth of 
Divine judgment is disclosed by fire or water or 
single combat, 

Agobard also wrote a book in answer to some 
strictures of Fredegisus, abbat of St. Martin's, 
Tours, in which he defends some former state- 
ments, and declares strongly against the verbal 
inspiration of Holy Scripture (see Iferzog); a 
letter to Bartholomew, Bishop of Narbonne, on 
a prevalent epilepsy ; and a further complaint 
against the Jews to Matfred, a courtier. 

His practical works on Church discipline and 
points of doctrine .ire of more permanent interest. 

Theae are (I.) to Bishop Bernard on the privi' 
leges and rights of the priesthood, an able and 
useful work ; (2.) on pictures and images, the 
best known and most frequently controverted 
of Agobard's works (see particularly Cave, ffist. 
Literana ii. 12, and Hist. Lit. de la France, ir. 
575, 576), probablv undertaken in connexion 
with the synod of l*aris in 824 (Cave, //. L, iu 
72), which ordered that images should be re- 
tained but not superstitiously venerated. Ago- 
bard draws most of his arguments from St. 
Augustin, citing also Popes Leo I., Gregory I., 
and sometimes Eusebius of Caesarea, adapting 
them however rather freely. He certainly goes 
beyond the opinion of his western contem- 
poraries in respect to the use of images in 
worship. " He even api^ears," say the Bene- 
di<!tine compilers jost cited, **to espouse the side 
of those who blame the cuUus of images ; and 
this is why our separatist brethren, who nisliki 
this practice, esteem this treatise so highly, and 
sometimes quote it with satisfaction." St. Mart he 
{Gall. Christ, iv. 56) characterizes tho work 
as containing "*» nonnulla duriora, nihil <^ert^ 
contrti fdcm." See the comments of Raip.ind 
and Mabillon in Le Cointe, Ann. t. viii. an 840, 
n. 14. 

(.3.) On the truth of the Faith, iic: an exhorta- 
tion to the people of Lyons. 

(4.) A Utter to Kb'>o Bishop of Bheims on hope 
and fear : a manual of choice selections, of which 
only the preface has been printed. 

(5.) On the administration of Ecclesiastical 
property: a tract directed against the preva- 
lent usurpations of the rights of the Church by 
lay landholders, and even by bishops and other 

(6, 7.) On Divine Psalmody, which is really a 
preface to a book On the correction of the Anti- 
phonurg, written with much animosity against 
Amalarius. a priest of the Church of Metz, who 
had called in question the changes and retrench- 
ments lately introduced by Agobard into the 



ofllioe-book of bis church. The Hiteration had 
be<>ii made on the principle of ezrJading every- 
thing but the pure Word of Qod, ^'lest/* he 
says, ** we should offer strange fire to the Lord." 
Cardinal Bona {De Divina Psalmodia^ p. 383, ed. 
Paris, 1663) reckons this as not the least of 
Agubard's errors. 

(8.) A lens bitter work on the same subject 
has the title, A book against the four books of 

The third class of Agobard's writings are con- 
nected with the one event of his life, which has 
left a serious stain upon the integrity and up- 
rightness of his character — his participation in 
the rebellion of Lothaire against his father, 
Louis, in 833. The most influential of Lothaire's 
episcopal partisans was li^bbo of Kheims, but 
Agobard ranked next to him, and while acknow- 
ledging the crime, tried to vindicate it. *^So 
detestable un act," says St. Marthe, ** in a man, 
however faultless in other respects, is quite be- 
yond excuse." The document affirming Louis's 
deposition at the synod of Compi^gne was issued 
by Agobard, and is certainly from his pen. The 
pieces extant on this subject are (1) a lamentable 
letter (Masson's title) to Louis on the division 
tf the empire among Louis' sons — a dissuasive 
against a fresh partition for the sake of Charles 
the youngest ; (2) a letter to Louis on the com- 
parison of ecclesiastical icith civil government, as- 
serting the dignity of the Church as superior to 
the majesty of the empire. (3) To this is 
appended an Epistle of Gregory IV. in reply to 
those Galilean bishops who were attached to the 
side of Louis. Masson ascribed this letter to 
Agobard's pen, but it is now acknowledged to be 
the genuine production of Gregory ; (4) An Apo- 
logy for Lothaire and Pepin, in which the motive 
for their revolt is stated to have been the re- 
formation of abuses at court. (5) The cartula 
of Louis's deposition mentioned above, presented 
by Agobard to Lothaire as emperor. It is thought 
that the other bishops presented similar docu- 
ments. Some have uselessly laboured to pal- 
liate Agobard's guilt in this revolt on the ground 
of an oath taken to Lothaire {Raiwvtd, t. viii. 
p. 28). He was probably sincere in his repent- 
ance. Having followed Lothaire into Italy, he 
was in 835 at the Council of Thionville deposed 
from his see, and some further steps were taken 
at Cremieu in 836, but his absence saved him 
from more direct punishment, and in the follow- 
ing year he recovered Louis's favour and the 
see of Lyons. Employed confidentially by Louis 
on state affairs, he died at Saintonge, during a 
visit for some political object, on June 6, 840 
(not 841 as Hugh of Flavigny states. See Oull. 

The claims of Agobard to the title of Saint 
are not undisputed. The Bollandists give him 
a place in their work on the following grounds, 
as explained by Henschen in a rather meagre 
critical notice: (1) because Masson, his first 
editor, allows him the title; (2) because he is 
commonly called St. Aguebaud in the church of 
Lyons; (3) because he is included in the local 
martyrologies, and a rite of nine lections is 
assigned to him in the Breviarium Lugdunense. 
I>u Saussay uncanonizes him, on the ground, as 
Henschen thinks, of his complicity in Lothaire's 
rebellion; but iuconsistently, as he recognizes 
the sanctity of Bernard, Archbishop of Vieune. 


There are no proper Acta, Agobftrd'a character 
is well sketched by St. Marthe, in these terms : 
" He was a man of high intellect and consum- 
mate erudition for his age, skilled in theology, 
patristic learning, and traidition ; acute in inter- 
preting, and very severe in defending Church 
discipline and the ancient canons; n deadly 
enemy of superstitions; obstinately wedded to 
an opinion which he had once adopted; rigor- 
ous and bold in his writings, but in oUier 
respects timid, and scarcely daring to raise 
his voice in the society of the great ; unim- 
peachable in his morals, faithful to the laws <^ 
the Church, and constant in his attendance at 
the sacred offices." A marked, but still an incon- 
sistent feature of his character, is that liberal 
independence of thought which has attracted 
Protestant writers ; for those who would applaud 
his tract on images, his exposure of popular 
superstitions, and his canons on the inspiration 
and use of Holy Scripture, would reprobate as 
narrow and intolerant his opposition to the Jews, 
and his rigid " sacerdotalism." See Baluze's 
estimate of his character in Cave, if. Z. ii. 11. 

Agobard's works were lost to the world, until 
a MS. copy was discovered by Papirius Masson, 
who rescued it from a bookbinder'» hands in 
Lyons, and finding its value, published it (Paris, 
1605, 8vo.). For this and similar bibliographical 
anecdotes, see Maitland, Ikirk Ages^ p. 279, sqq. 

A second and far more valuable edition, with 
illustrative notes, was undertaken by M. Beluze 
(Paris, 1666, 2 vols. 8vo.). His text is more 
accurate than that of Masson, and is substituted 
for it, though without the notes in the later 
editions of the Bibliotheoa Patrrnn^ t, xiv. pp. 
234-329. Select quotations from the Epistles 
are in Bouquet, Eec. vi. 356-368. Lists of Ago- 
bard's works are given in Cave, Bist. Lit. t. iL 
pp. 12, 13, and with full comments in Hist. Lit^ 
de la Fi-ance, t. iv. pp. 571-581. To the prose 
writings above enumerated should be added two 
small poems, The Ejntaph of CTiarles the Great^ 
and (Hi the Translation of the Relics of SS, Cy- 
prion, SperatuSy ^c. These are of no merit ; his 
prose is generally written In a simple and natural 
style, without embellishment. He made more 
use of assertion than argument, and borrowed 
largely from ancient writers, showing the closest 
acquaintance with the works of St. Augustine 
and with Holy Scripture. 

A list of the authors who till his own time 
had contributed to elucidate the history of Ago- 
bard may be seen in Fabricius, Bibliotheca Med, 
et Inf, LatinitatiSy s. y. ; those of later date in 
Potthast, Bibliotheca Hist, Med, Aevi, p. 108. 
As a local historian Menestrier {Hist, Civile de la 
Mile de Lyon, pp. 214-237) is very valuable; 
while Dr. Hundeshagen, who contributed the 
article * Agobard ' to Herzog's Real Encyklopidie^ 
gives the results of late critical research in his 
Commentatio de Agcbardi Vita et ScHptis, Giessae, 
1831. [C. D.] 

AGRKyOLA, martyred with his slave Vitalis 
by crucitixion at Itologna (under Diocletian, 
according to a letter [55] falsely attributed 
to St. Ambrose), his body being pierced with 
large nails moi-e in number than his limbs. 
The authority for his story is a sermon preached 
by St. Ambrose {Exhort, ad Virgin.) at the dedi- 
cation in 393 of a church at Florence, to whi?h 


the ralics of both murtyn, jotft found by St. 
4mbroM At Bolog1u^ were transported by him. 
S«« aIm Panlinos of NoU (^Poem. xxir.), Paulinos 
m r. .!?. Ambrus, (xxix.), Greg. Turon. {De Oior. 
MiH. 44, Mist, Franc, ii. 16). [A. W. H.] 

AGRIPPA CASTOR ('A7p<viraf Kdffr»p\ 

io ecclesiastical writer who lived in the reign of 

HaJrian (abont A^. 135) described by Eusebios 

{ff, E, ir. 7.) as iv roi% t<Jt« ytrnpifi^aros <rvy- 

TPo^Vf , and by Jerome as ** vir valde doctus " 

(/v Vir. flL cap. xxi). He is the first who la 

iMrDtioned as haring written against heresy. He 

vrote against Basiudes, and gave what Euse- 

bx^i- accounted as a most satisfactory refutation 

ao-i complete exposure of his imposture. That 

AjH^ppa wrote also against Isidorus, the son of 

E^ihdes, seems to be an unwarranted inference 

t'rum the statement of Theodoret (Haer, Fab. 1. 

4) that Basilides and Isidorus were opposed by 

A^ippa, Irensns, Clement, and Origen. [G. S.] 

AGRIPPINU8, probably jortk^iecessor of 
' yprian — his decesaor I>onatua--(Pear8onf Ann. 
'.).}K A.D. 248). The interval is described by 
Au,;ti»tine (cb Bap. 1. iii. 12) as ** ab Agrippino 
a*4ae ad Cyprianum;*' and Cyprian (Ep. 71, 4) 
»(<<aks of him as ** bonae memoriae vir cum cae- 

t^rii^ Ice qui i//o m tempore gnbernabant '* 

{£p. 73) ^ multi jam anni et longa netas ex quo 
«ub Agrippino,** ice. These must explain Augus- 
line'i terra pramieoetsor and his phrase ** paucis 
mte »e annis " in Bap. c Don. iv. 6 

He held the First Council of Carthage (a.d. 

-'K>-7, Labbe, Cone. vol. i. p. 735; a.d. 186-7, 

Moroelli, roL it p. 44) consisting of seventy (Aug. 

^ B»tp. c PitU. xliL 22) bishops of Africa and 

Niaudia(Cyp. Ep. 71 X which decided for the 

nuaptiixn of heretioi; he being according to Au- 

juktiae, the author of that novelty. This seems 

t«- hrmw his earlier date, as, if the later were 

taken, Tertullian*s opinions would have been 

4iop;ed by rather than from his church, whereas 

tt« «peaks in his catholic treatise De Bnptismo 

b .f rvbaptism were the accepted rule (Ad nos 

Mitum e>t, e. 15). On the contrary, Hefele 

<• ♦rr/. ii. § 4) decide** for the later date because 

T-.tulluia, praitting the Greek Ube of councils, 

:>>btiuai no African council. Diillinger {Hipp. 

vt/ KiiL p. 19u) maintains that Carthage is 

^iuJ^>i to when Hippolytus says that rebaptism 

«i^ of Canij»tu.«' time (I'hiio>/ophu>nj p. 291), and 

"• ^ivo A.D. 218-222 as date uf Council, accept- 

^i.- the p(>s*ibility of TertuUian's having in- 

^"..•iM.-<il the African view. Hippolytus, however, 

•r.t*^ of liome, and TertuUian speaks oi general 

"lacils. The argumenti for the earlier date 

•> more weighty. The expression of Novatus, 

'■^ u( the oldest of the 87 bishops, in A.l>. 2.')7 

■ti'i ^ent. Kpp.) seems noticeable. He could 

--uiely have called them ** sanctisssmae me- 

-^• viro*," had not their generation com- 

f.-i*ly pu»eil away, nor **collegas," if they had 

^*rn ^uite l>«yonil memory. Vincent. Lirin. and 

^AtuaiiL* Uermian. (1. x. 3) do not beem to have 

i^B in (•c»e»»ion of other information than we 

^ve. [E. W. B.] 

AU1MN1U8 (AiirMNCB, Ahtmmls; 2 MSS. 
■■d Auicust. de Bap. c. Don.\ bishop of Ausuaga 
(Att»iu^ga) (AuMna, Au^agga, Vict. Vit. Fell.) 
• War. ZengiL o{ Africa (together with bishops 
Fcitiiaatoa, Opuitns, Frivatianus, Zhmatulusy 
^«ixi>, coiuulta Cyprian a« to restoration of 




Ninus, Clementianus, and Florus, who In the 
Decian persecution, after enduring the question 
^ before the native magistrates, succumbed to the 
■ greater severity of the proconsul, and had spent 
j three years 8Ut>sequently in penance. The case 
I referred by them to Cyprian (who reserves it to 
. next council) had been referred to them by 
: bishop Superius of the diocese where it hap- 
' pened. The occasion of their meeting was to 
consecrate a bishop for Capsa (Ep. 56), and as 
Donatulus subsequently appears (Cone, Carth. 
de Bap. iii. Suffrag. 69) as bishop of that place 
he no doubt was the person ordained. MUnter 
in a list full of errors, p. 15, Prim. Ecc. Afr. con- 
siders the name Ah3rmnius Phoenician ; Gesenius 
Greek. [£. W. B.] 

AIDAN (Aedan), ST., Celtic Apostle of 
Northumbria, and tirst bishop of Lindisfame, 
though his name is not included in the oldest 
martyrologies, except as an insertion in the MS. 
additions to Usuard, enjoyed the highest repu- 
tation for holiness and practical wisdom during 
his life, and was venerated as a Saint from the 
date of his death, 651. Bede, who was bom 
twenty years after this epoch, ** has made his 
character and life the subject of one of the most 
eloquent and attractive pictures ever drawn by 
{ the pen of the venerable historian " (Montalem- 
I bert. Monks of West, iv. 23, Transln.). Stilting 
: (CotMnentarii, in Act. SS. Boll. Aug. vi. 688X who 
examined the media;val biographies of this Saint, 
states that they were entirely drawn from Bede 
and added nothing from other sources. There 
are no records of Aidan's birthplace, or early 
life. He is lii-st noticed by Bede (//. E. iii. 5) 
as a monk of Hy or loua under the 5th Abbat 
Seghen, and of the full canonical age for the 
Episcopacy. His ordinatiun was due to the ill- 
success of a missionary named Corman,* who had 
been sent to convert Northumbria by the elders 
of the Scottish Church (i.e. the heads of the Co- 
lumban muuu«teries) at the request of King Os- 
wald of Northumbria, himself converted duriug 
his seventeen y«ars* exile in Scotland (Montilem- 
bert, iv. 5 and Genealogical table). When Corman 
had reported to the synod of his Church his want 
of progress, which he ascribed to the stubborn 
and barbarous spirit of the English, and the 
fathers were f)erplvxed what to recommend, Aidan, 
one of the asse!«sors, attributed Gorman's failure 
to his too great severity. **You did not," he 
said, "after the Apostolic precept, first otler 
them the milk of more gentle doctrine, till by 
dej^rees through the nourishment of God's Word 
they might have strength to receive and practi>e 
Gotl's more perfect and exalted counsel.*' Thi» 
discreet advice convinced the synod that Aidan 
posse»>e<l the great qualification for missionary 
success which Corman lacked. He was conse- 
crated bishop probably in 635; Bede's authority 
makes for this date rather than 634 or 636. 
(Alford, Annales, ii. 239.) He fixed his own 
residence on an island ^ near Bamborough, called 
Lindisfarne (afterwards Holy Island), which be- 
came the uiona.stic and episcopal capital of North- 
umbria. Whether the choice of this spot r.tther 
than Cataract, where James the Italian deacon 

* Thf* name Tet>\t only un tbe more than sQ»plcioas 
aothonty uf Hfctm B<4fthliM (lib. ix.) 

h It is aooesslble from the mainland by a stilp of Mod 
at low water. CT. Soolt, JilarwU^nk canto il. 9. 




still kept aliye the relics of the Christianity which 
Paulinos had planted and Penda's invasion had 
nearly obliterated, was due to his determination 
to hare no connexion with the Gregorian mis- 
sionaries (Hook, Archbisho/)Sf i. 118), or in imi- 
tation of the local particulars of St. Columba*8 
monastic foundation (Montalembert, ir. 19), or 
from the reasons which had decided Oswald to 
apply for missionaries to lona rather than to Can- 
terbury {ihid. p. 14), cannot well be decided.' 
Lindisfarne would be more favourable than York 
to the development of the monastic system, and 
its local situation in Bernicio, Oswald's here- 
ditary domain, within sight of his residence at 
Bamborough, would alone account for the change. 
The intercourse between king and bishop was 
very close until Oswald's death in 642. Aidan 
did not easily acquire the English tongue, and 
Oswald at first acted as his interpreter. He also 
in all things humbly and willingly obeyed his 

It was probably the life of Aidan rather than his 
preaching which converted Northumbria to Chris- 
tianity. (See Lappenberg, Anglo-Saxon Kings^ 
p. 158, ed. London, 1845.) "He left his clergy," 
s.iys Bede, "a most wholesome example of ab- 
stinence and continence, and the highest com- 
mendation of his teaching was that his own life 
corresponded with it." He hated display, and, 
except in cases of urgent need, always travelled 
on foot. Thus he was able to stop frequently 
during his journeys, and to urge travellers either 
to accept the Faith, or, if they were already 
Christians, to commend it by their lives. He 
seems to have possessed a singular charm of 
manner and address, which fii'st won his hearers, 
and then incited them to an imitation of his own 
i;elf-denial and austerity. This Bede contrasts 
with the greater laxity of his own age. " All 
who accompanied him, whether monks or laymen, 
were under obligation to meditate, that is, either 
to read the Scriptures or to learn the Psalter." 
He would huriy away from the king's table, 
where however he was rarely a guest, to read or 
pray, and many persons followed his example of 
fasting on Wednesday and Friday, except during 
Eastertide, till the ninth hour. He never Hinched 
from rebuking vice or oppression in the rich and 
powerful, and when they claimed his hospit^ility, 
he gave them no presents, but bestowed whatever 
he had received from the rich either in the relief 
of the |)oor or in redeeming captives, es]>eclally 
those who had been unjustly sold. Many of 
these freedmen were raised to the priesthood 
(Baeda, If. E. iii. 5). Education was an important 
feature of his system. At the beginning of his 
mission he took personal charge of twelve English 
youths {H. E. iii. 26). As each church and mo- 
nastery was founded, it became a school where a 
complete education was given by monks who had 
followed Aidan from Scotland. For his personal 
use he retained nothing of the grants of land 
received from the king and nobles, except a 
church or chapel, a small chamber, and a few 
fields at each of the principal villae (J7. E. iii. 
17). Aidan survived his patron and partner in 
good works, the Bretwalda Oswald, who rivalled 
u he did not surpass the bishop in posthumous 

• There Is no antbortty for Bsillet's suppoeition that 
JLidaa wM biihop of York for three yetre (Aoilt, ooL 505). 
MUliiff espoMt the errai; 


glory. At the untimely death of this prince in 
battle with the pagan king of Mercia, Penda, 
in 642, Northumbria was divided between Os- 
wald's brother Oswy, who claimed Bemicia, and 
Oswin, son of Osric, of the Delran stock, who, re- 
turning from exile, was received in his father's 
dominions. Oswin, already a Christian, and en- 
dowed with a saintly spirit in addition to singulai 
comeliness and grace of person, lived on terms of 
close friendship with Aidan, who retained his 
episcopal jurisdiction throughout divided North- 
umbria, as he had held it in Oswald's reign. We 
ore told of no direct intercourse between him 
and Oswy. Indirectly his prayers availed the 
king, who was besieged by Penda in his fortress 
of Bamborough, and would have been burnt with 
the town, had not the wind suddenly changed, it 
was believed, at the intercession of Aidan, and 
hurled back the flames on the besiegers (//. E, 
iii. 17). 

None of Aidan's sermons have been preserved, 
and but few of his sayings. What we have are 
very characteristic. Besides the words already 
mentioned, which are thought to have led to his 
mission, he once said to Oswald on Easter-day, 
seizing his hand as he was ordering the distri- 
bution of a silver dish and its contents among 
the poor, " May this hand * never perish ! " (//. 
E, iii. 14); and Oswin, who ventured to com- 
plain when the bishop had bestowed on a poor 
beggar a splendid horse, the king's own present, 
received the following rebuke. ** What sayest 
thou, king ? Is that son of a mare dearer to 
thee than this son of God ? " The young king 
threw himself at Aidan's feet, professing that he 
would never henceforth grudge anything to the 
children of God, whereu)H)n the bishop began to 
shed tears, and answered a priest's enquiry as 
to the cause of his sadness in the Celtic tongue. 
" 1 know that the king will not live long, for 
never till now have I Eeen a king so humble ; 
and so I think that he will soon be taken from 
this life, for the nation is not worth v of such a 
ruler." {H. E. iii. 315.) Shortly after Oswin 
was betrayed to Oswy and murdered by him 
on August 20, 651. Aidan survived him only 
twelve days. He was at the royal tiiia near 
Bamborough when a violent illness seized him. 
They pitched a tent to protect him against the 
west wall of a small church, so that he expired 
with his head leaning against a post which served 
as a buttress. This past stood intact after the 
church had been twice burnt down, and chips 
from it were reputed efficacious for the cure of 
diseases. Aidan's body was buried at Lindisfarne, 
at first in the monastic cemeterv, then in St. 
Peter's church beside the altar. On the night 
of the bishop's death Cuthbert, then a youth, 
while tending some sheep on the mountains, saw 
a ban<l of angels descend from heaven, and return 
with a soul of surpassing brightness. This vision 
he considered a decisive call to undertake the 
monastic life (Baeda, Vita S, Cuthherii, iv.). Bede 
qualifies his very high praise of Aidan in only one 
particular. He adhei*ed to the heterodox Celtic 
Easter (H. E. iii. 3, 17), "His zeal for God was 
not altogether according to knowledge: for he 
was wont to keep Easter Day, according to the 

* " Nunqnam inveKreecat haec manns.** Its history ll 
iraoerl till the 16th century by Altord, ^IfMiaki, iU. StS 
9tt»\aoAci,S& BolL Aug. IL 87. 


rastom of hU country, from the fourteenth to | t-anelU. See besides the places already cited 

the twentieth znocn/* Aidan continued the Henschen's previous commentary, Act. SS, BoU, 

Celtic practice, it seems without contradiction, Feb. ii. 343, and Histoire Lit. de la France^ vr, 

till his death, though James the Roman deacon 33-35, 57. [0. D.] 

'^.J"^!" ^t"^^ K**** fi"w ^"'^.^^^^^i*^ ^^^ AIGULPHUS, M., abbot of Lerins, deported 

with all whom hecouWbnng to the knowledge ^ ^„ j.j^^ between Corsica and Sardinia by his 

/^ Ir^^J'^^' ^''"5^ M* difference in- ^^ ^^^^s, who after horrible tortures iur- 

rvlred the ob^rrance of a double Easter in the ^^^ ,^j„ „^j j^i^ companions about a.d. 660 (or 

uxne diocase, and a serious clash mg of fast and 551 according to some)/ and who is placed in the 

i«tiTal aU men toUnrated it patiently whilst n,artyrologies Sept. 3 (Baron, ilnn. ad an. 644, 

AKian hred, seeing that he could not depart ^^ j[^^^^^^ ^^^^ Surius Sept. 3). [A. W. H.] 
tjrvm the custom of his country, while he dili- j r » r x l j 

gently laboured to practise the works of faith, AEIBA, Ben Joseph (K2^pPX Kabbi, was, 

piety and lore, for which reason he was de- according to tradition, a proselyte of Canaan- 

Krredly beloved by all, and was held in venera- itish race, and descended from Sisera. He was 

tioo by such bishops as Honorius of Canterbury, originally a herdsman in the employ of a rich 

aad Felix of East Anglia (//. E. iii. 25). man named Kalba-Sabua. His master's daughter, 

It remains only to notice that Aidan predicted Rachel, fell in love with him, and they were 

a storm which overtook Utta, a priest, who was secretly married ; but her father, on discovering 

>fut by Oswy to fetch home from her exile in it, expelled them from his house. She persuaded 

Kent his destined bride, Eanfleda, daughter of him, though he was forty years of age, to begin 

Edwin, king of Northumbria, and that a flask of the study of the law ; and for some years she 

ail which Utta had received from Aidan for the lived by herself in the deepest poverty, while 

pur]M)«e actually allayed the storm {H, E. iii. 15). he attended the lectures of R. Nachum of Gimso 

Aidan aUo patronised Heiu, the first nun in North- and R. Eliezer ben Hyrcan. There is a legend 

ambria, and the celebrated Abbess Hilda, whom in that when he became a renowned teacher he gave 

her early monastic life he constantly visited and his wife a golden ornament, with a representa- 

diiieently instructed (//. E. iv. 23). Eata, one tion of Jerusalem on it ; R. Gamaliel's wife 

of Aidan's twelve boys, was, on bishop Colman's asked her husband for a similar present, but he 

de^mrture into Scotland in 664, made abbat and answered that only a wife who had shewn such 

afterwards bishop of Lindisfame. Colman carried fidelity in poverty deserved such a reward, 

swav part of the bones of Aidan, and left the rest Akiba is said to have told his disciples, ** what 

at LiDdtsfame. In ecclesiastical art this Saint is you are and what I am, we owe to my wife." 

•ometiroei represented with a stag crouching at He taught at Bene Berak, which some place 

ai> feet (Huaenbeth's Emblems), He is comroe- near Joppa and others near Azotus. He is ccle- 

monated on August 31. Bamborough Church is brated as one of the chief founders of the rab- 

dedicated to hino. The Theological College at binicnl school of interpretation ; he held rigidly 

Birkenhead is a modern foundation. [C. D.] to the written text, even in preference to any 

emendation of the Masora, nnd maintained that 

AIGRADV8 (written ANaRADU8,Trithemius, every particle nnd even letter had its separate 

^^Ave, kc. ; also Ansgradus, Ansoardus), monk meaning. Hence it is said in the Talmud (ife- 

ot' KoDtanelles (S. Vandrille), near Rouen, flou- nach. fol. 29), *' when Moses ascended into the 

nohe«i about 699. He wrote at the request of mount, he found God tying crowns (sc. fccpaiou) 

>t. Hilbert, the fourth abbat of S. Vaudriile, the to the letter:^, and he said to him, ** Lord, what 

..t«r uf hij( predecessor St. Ansbert, who ruled the delays thy hand ?" He answered, ** many ages 

ni'D%»tery trom 678 to 695, during eleven years hence there will arise a mnn by name Akiba ben 

•"t miiich period he was albo archbishop of Rouen. Joseph, who shall make unnumbered stores of 

Ir.i^ life, written in an elegant style, and with comments on every tittle." He also strongly 

Ktne Lutte and judgment, has been unhappily held the mystical chamcter of Solomon's song. 

■::terpoUted by a later hand, so that it is hard He seems to have been the first who attempted 

to decide, says Henschen in the Acta SS. BoU.y to systematise the immense mass of halachoth 

■ iuit 14 Aigntdiu' genuine work : he fully proves or authoritative decisions of former rabbis, as he 

tLit the work is interpolated ; but the editors arranged them in chapters according to their 

of the Hist, Lit. de la France do not think that its subject matter, and also invented a set of mne- 

ii^tecrity or value have been seriously affected, monies to facilitate their committal to memory. 

It W4S hr»t printed by Surius on Feb. 9, the day This Mishna of R. Akiba, as it was called, or 

tf it. An»bert's death (pp. 938-949, ed. 1571); Middoth (cf. Epiphan. contra Haer. § 15, S 33, of 

aal more accurst elr, with critical notes, by the the four current 8ctrr(p»<r(if, Hfvrdpa 8< ^ rou 

bi'i!hndist&, Feb. vol. ii. pp. .347-356. Ka\ovfi4yov 'Pa$$iaKi$d)y was oral and not com- 

Tbe compilers of Gallia Christiana (xi. 167), mitted to writing ; but it no doubt served as 

ud all modem authors, attribute to Aigradus the first idea of the subsequent Mishna of R. 

tat fragment of the life of St. Lantbert or Lam- Jehuda. He is said to have also studied those 

brrt, *dit«d as anonymous by Mabillon, Acta SS. dark questions of cosmogony and theosophy which 

Bened, sacc. iiL par. 2, pp. 462-465. He had the Jewish gnosis of that time sought to dis- 

rcceived bis monastic institution under St. Lant- cover in the Mosaic account of the creation and 

^ert, who fiticceeded St. Wandregisilus, founder in Ezekiel's chariot ; hence it is said ** four rabbis 

ef Feotaoelles in 667, and became archbishop of plunged into these mysteries, Ben Asai, Ben 

LyoM in 678. Tk« fn^ment preserved contains Soma, Elisha. and Akiba, and only the last passed 

little move tiiaa the introdaction, which is of through, »ound in body and soul." He held that 

tfimt lUsterical Tain*. The Bollandists have these chapters should not be read aloud ezceot 

•rrtj m rapposisf that Aigradus claims to have before qualihed hearers, and that none should 

«Titt« tk» Wko( Si, Condednay licrmit of Fon- study them under thirty years of age. Four of 

F a 



his moral sayings are given in the Pirke Ahoth^ 
iii. 10-13. 

Akiba threw himself with all his energy of 
character into the national discontent against 
the Roman government under Trajan and Ha- 
drian. He spent several years in travelling in 
different countries to visit the Jews and animate 
their hopes, and we hear of him in Africa (Gy- 
rene ?X Arabia, Nisi bis, the chief seat of Jewish 
learning in Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Cappa- 
docia. He became an enthusiastic supporter of 
Simon Bar Cochba, who was the leader of the 
rebellion against Ticinius Rufus, the Tyrannus 
Rufus of the Talmud; and he applied to him 
the prophecies of Numbers xxiv. 17, and Haggai 
ii. 6. The rebellion lasted more than three 
years, and was finally crushed by the capture of 
Bethar (Beth ZorX a.d. 135 (or, according to 
some writers, 125). R. Akiba was one of the 
many victims who fell after the suppression of 
the movement ; the tradition is that he was torn 
to death with iron combs. At his death it was 
said that ** the arms of the law were broken and 
the fountains of wisdom stopped up." Jerome 
seems to allude to him in his Comm, on Kccles, 
iv. 13, ** Hebraeus meus, cujus saepe facio men- 
tionem, cum Ecclesiasten mecum legeret, haec 
Baracibam (so Epiphan. con. haer, 15 'AKtjSav ^ 
BofKuci/Say), quem unum vel maxima admirantur, 
super praesenti loco tradidisse testatus est." 
in his Comtru on Is, viii., he calls him Akibas, 
and mentions him as Aquila's teacher. (Graetz, 
OeschkhU der Juden, iv. pp. 60-68, 116, 117, 
157-194; Frankel's Zeitschrift fUr Gesch. und 
]\A8sen. des JudenthumSj iii. pp. 45-51, 81-93, 
130-148.) [E. B. C] 

AIjARIG (Teut. prob. = Athalaric, ** noble 
ruler"), general and king (398) of the Goths, 
the most civilized and merciful of the barbarian 
chiefs who ravaged the Roman Empire. His 
life has already been given in the Dictionary of 
iireek and Homan Biography. It therefore i-e- 
mains here, after recapitulating its chief events 
in outline, to draw out Alaric's attitude towards, 
and influence upon, Christianity, 

Alaric first appears among the Gothic army 
who assisted Theodosius in opposing Eugenius, 
394. He led the revolt of his nation against 
Arcadius, ravaged the provinces south of the 
Danube, and invaded Greece 395. Athens capi- 
tulated, and afterwards Corinth, Argos, and 
Sparta. Stilicho, general of the Western Em- 
pire, the only man who could cope with Alaric, 
on his second expedition into Greece (see Gibbon 
iv. 27, note, ed. Smith), attacked Alaric in Pelo- 
ponnesus, and hemmed him in. His escape is 
referred by Zosimus to Stilicho*s carelessness, 
but by Claudian, with greater probability, to 
intrigues with the Court of Constantinople, 
which was jealous of Stilicho's interference. 
Under the title of Master-General of Eastern Illy- 
ricum, 398, he became the ally of Arcadius, 
and secretly planned the invasion of Italy. In 
the winter of 402 Alaric crossed the Alps, 
towards the close of that year penetrated into 
Italy, and was defeated by Stilicho at Pollentia 
on Easter Day 403, after which he retreated 
from Italy with some further losses. In 404 he 
exchanged the prefecture of Eastern for that of 
Western Illyricum, and the service of Arcadius 
fcr that of fionorins, and, after the incursion 


and annihilation of Rhadagaisus and his Scla- 
vonian hordes in 405, he was subsidised for his 
supposed services to the empire by the payment 
of 4000 pounds of gold. Stilicho's ruin and 
death in 408, the subsequent massacre of the 
Goths settled in Italy, and Honorius* impolitic 
refusal of Alaric's equitable terms, caused the 
second invasion of Italy, marked by the first 
blockade of Rome, which ended in a capitulation, 
Alaric retiring with a large ransom. At the 
second siege in 409, preceded by the capture of 
Ostia, the city was surrendered unconditionally, 
and Alaric set up Attalus as emperor, in oppo- 
sition to Honorius, who remained at Ravenna. 
At the close of the third siege, in 410 
(August 24), the city was in the hands of the 
Goths for six days, during three of which the 
sack was continued. Alaric's intended invasion 
of Sicily and Africa was prevented by his death 
at Consentia late in 410. 

The authorities for this history are given in 
the Dictionary of Greek and Soman Biography, 
and they may be examined more fully in the 
notes to Gibbon's lioman Umpire f vol. iv. pp. 

The effect of Alaric's conquests on the cau»e 
of Christianity, and on the spiritual position of 
Rome in Western Christendom, is well traced bv 
Dean Milman (Latin Christianity^ 1. 120-140). 
Alaric and his Goths had embraced diristianity 
probably from the teaching of Ulphilas, the 
Arian bishop, who died in 388 (Mosheim, ed. 
Stubbs, i. 233). This age witnessed the last 
efforts of Paganism to assert itself as the ancient 
and national religion, and Rome was its last 
stronghold. Pagans and Christians had retorted 
upon each other the charge that the calamities 
of the empire were due to the desertion oi the 
old or new system of faith respectively, and the 
truth or falsehood of either was generally staked 
upon the issue. The almost miraculous discom- 
fiture of the heathen Rhadagaisus by Stilicho, m 
spite of his vow to sacrifice the noblest senators 
of Rome on the altars of the gods which de- 
lighted in human blood, was accepted as an ill 
omen by those at Rome who hoped for a public 
restoration of Paganism {Gibbon, iv. 47—49, ed. 
Smith ; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 122). 
Rome, impregnable while Stilicho, her Christian 
defender, lived, could submit only to the ap- 
proach of Alaric, " a Christian and a soldier, the 
leader of a disciplined army, who understood the 
laws of war, and respected the sanctity of 
treaties." In the first siege of Rome, 410, both 
Pagan and Christian historians relate the strange 
proposal to relieve the city by the magical arts 
of some Etruscan divinei*s. who were believed to 
have power to call down lightning from heaven, 
and direct it against Alaric's camp. That Pope 
Innocent assented to this public ceremony rests 
only on the authority of the heathen Zosimus 
(v. 41). It is questioned whether this idolatrons 
rite actually took place. Alaric perhaps ima- 
gineii that he was furthering the Divine purpose 
in besieging Rome. Sozomen {Hist, EccL ix. 
cap. 7) mentions as a current story that a cer- 
tain monk, on urging the king, then on his 
march through Italy, to spare the city, received 
the reply that he was not acting of his own 
accord, but that some one was persistently forcii^ 
him on, and urzing him to sack Rome. 

The shock felt through the world at the newt 


of tbc capture of Rome in Alaric's third ftie$;c, 
410, wu disproportioned to the real magnitude 
of the calamitj : contrast the exaggerated lan- 
Kvage of St. Jerome, Kp. ad Principiamj with Oro- 
uu, L m. c 39, and St. Aagnstioe De Civ, Dei^ 
iL 2 (a work written between 413 and 426 with 
the express object of refuting the Pagan argu- 
BCBts from the sad( of Rome), and his tract, De 
tzadio UrhU {Opp, t. ri. 622-628, ed. Bened.). 
The book in which Zosimus related the fall of 
Kooie has been lost, so that we hare to gather 
lAformation from Christian sources ; but it is 
plain that the destruction and loss was chiefly 
CO the side of Paganism, and that little escaped 
vhich did not shelter itself under the protection 
of Christianity. **The heathens fled to the 
churches, the only places of refxige .... There 
slone rapacity and lust and cruelty were 
arrested and stood abashed " (Milman, p. 133). 
The property of the churches and, in some 
iutances at least, the persons of Christian 
Tir^ins were respected. Several characteristic 
aaecJotes, preserred by Jerome, Orosius, and 
others, are found in all accounts of the siege. 
The Pagan inhabitants of Rome were scattered 
over Africa, Egypt, Syria and the east, and were 
eocMintered alike by St. Jerome at Bethlehem 
xai by St. Augustine at Carthage. Innocent I. was 
abftent at Ravenna during the siege of Rome. 
Ob his return heathen temples were converted 
into Christian churches; **with Paganism ex- 
(i«r«d the venerable titles of the religion, the 
crest High Priests and Flamens, the Auspices and 
Aogurs. On the pontifical throne sat the 
bt«hop of Rome, who would soon possess the 
»?Utaace of the imperial power. The capture 
ot Rome by Alaric was one of the great steps by 
which the pope rose to his plenitude of power 
(Milman, p. 139). 

Alaric was instrumental in driving Paganism 
frvm Greece as well as Rome. Zosimus (v. 7) 
SHcrrtf that on his approach to Athens its 
vaiU were seen to be guarded by Minerva and 
Achillea. Gibbon, while wishing to give Zosimus 
the full benefit of an age of credulity, confesses 
"that the mind of Alaric was ill prepared to 
prcrive, either in sleeping or waking visions, the 
iai{>reM4oiis of Greek superstition .... The 
laruioD of the Goths, instead of vindicating the 
acnour, contributed, at least accidentally, to 
fitirpate the last remains of Paganism ; and the 
BTiteries of Ceres, which had subsisted eighteen 
iundred years, did not survive the destruction 
^f fJeusis and the calamities of Greece " (vol. iv. 
^ J7). 

Tat eooqnests of Alaric, though achieved at 
aa aiee when the Church boasted many eminent 
ttiou and writers, afibrd far fewer materials for 
tA« mjrtyrologist and hagiologist than those of 
Attila. Alaric, though an Arian, is nowhere re- 
corded to have persecuted the Catholics whom 
war had placed in his power. Jornandes and 
Itiiore of Seville, Gothic historians, and Oro- 
sios, a Spaoish Catholic, are equally silent on 
thi* point. The following facts of personal 
biitery hava been pr«»serv^. In the sack of 
Kooe Maroclia, an aged matron, was thrown on 
th^ gTfmmd and cruelly beaten (Jerome, Ep, ad 
Pri^r-ipitm) ; a nameless lady who persistently 
T*^\]id hn capturer, was conducted by him to 
tM lanctoaiy of the Vatican ; and an aged 
tlrfia, to wboM chargt tome sacred vessels had 



been entrusted, through her bold constancy pre* 
served them intact. At the plunder of Kola in 
Campania, St. Paulinus its bishop is said to have 
prayed, ** Lord, let me not suffer torture either 
for gold or silver, since Thou knowest where are 
all my riches " (Fleury, Eccl. Hist. ed. Newman, 
bk. xxii. c. 21). Proba, widow of the prefect 
Petronius, retired to Africa with her daughter 
Laeta, and her granddaughter Demetrias (Jerome, 
£pisi. cxxx. t. i. p. 969, ed. Vallars.), and spent 
her large fortune in relieving the captives and 
exiles. (See Tillemont, Mtfin. Eccl^s. t. xiii. p. 
620-635.) Valuable contributions to the history 
of Alaric not already mentioned are Sigonius, 
0pp. t. i. par. i. p. 347, sqq. ed. Argellati ; 
Aschbach, Qtsch. der Westgothen. [C. D.] 

ALBANU8, M. (1) The protomartyr o! 
Britain — ^if he ever existed (and the doubt may 
at least serve to signalize the remarkable paucity 
of martyrs in the several conversions of these 
islands) : martyred probably at Verulamium, 
and according to either the " conjecture " or the 
" knowledge ** (conjicimns or cogn^citnus) of 
Gildas, in the time of Diocletian, and if so, a.d. 
304, but according to another legend, which 
however still speaks of Diocletian, in 286 (^Anglo- 
Sax. Chron., Lib. Landav.). Eusebius (//. JS. 
viii. 13, and De Mart. Palaest. xiii. 10, 11), 
Lactantius {De Mori. Persecut. zv. xvi.), and 
Sozomen (i. 6), deny that there was any perse- 
cution during the time of (^nstantius in *' the 
Gauls," which term included Britain. It is pos- 
sible, however, that Constantius may have been 
compelled to allow one or two martyrdoms. 
And it is at least certain, that 125 years after the 
latest date assigned to Al ban's martyi'dom, 144 
after the earliest, viz. a.d. 429 (Prosper, Chron.yj 
Germanus visited his relics in Britain, and it is 
to be presumed at Verulamium (Constant, in 
V. S. Gemiani, written a.d. 473-492). Gildas 
mentions him in 560 (whose statement however 
about the persecution is of no value, being simply 
a transference of Eusebius's words to Britain, to 
which Eusebius himself says they did not apply), 
and Vennntius Fortunatus {Poem. viii. iv. 155) 
about 580. Ba>da in 731 copies Constantius, and 
certain Acta otherwise unknown. And the sub- 
sequent foundation of Otfa in 793 only serves to 
identify the place with the tradition. The Bri- 
tish Life discovered by the St. Alban*s monk 
Unwona in the 10th century, according tu Mat- 
thew Paris, in IT. Af/b. S. Alban., is appurentlv 
a myth. And the Life by William of St. Alban s 
in the 12th centurv is of the ordinarv nature 
and value of Lives of the kind and date. But 
the testimony of Germanus, in Con.stantius' Life 
of him, seems sufficient proof that a tradition of 
the martyrdom of somebody named Albanus ex- 
isted at Verulamium a century and something 
more after the supposed date of that martyi'dom. 
That he was a heathen, who sheltered a clergyman 
flying from persecution, and who, when himself 
dragged in that clergyman's rohe {caracaiia or am- 
phifiaitis) to the tribunal on a charge of favouring 
the clergyman's escape, afiliined himself (being 
unbaptized) to be a Christian, and who, upon re- 
fusing likewise to sacrifice, was condemned to be 
scourged and beheaded; that he miraculously 
divided a river, when the crowd blocked up the 
bridge, on his way to the place of execution, and 
brought up a fountain at the place itself, to 



quench his thirst ; that the intended executioner 
was converted and suffered with him, while the 
actual executioner's eyes dropped out at the 
instant of his beheading him ; all this represents 
a belief as old as the 7th century (Baed. i. 7), 
but is of course pure fiction, as much so as are 
the equally stereotyped numbers of 888, or 989, 
or 889 companions of his martyrdom. His re- 
putation seems to have extended to the Conti- 
nent, as (not to mention Venant. Fortunatus in 
580, above referred to) Norman-French Lives 
and tracts about him appear to exist. The Eng- 
lish poet Lydgate also, in 1439, *' translatyd the 
glorious Lyves of Seynt Alban and Seynt Am- 
phiball oute of Frensh and Latyn" into English 
verse ; and his work was printed at St. Alban's, 
4to, 1534, by one John Hertford (Hardy's De- 
scrij4. Catalogue^ &c. i. 2'S). Aaron and Jiilius 
are the two names preserved of his companions, 
or at any rate contemporaries, in martyrdom. 
And fur these there is the evidence of a Welsh 
tradition anterior to Geofi'rey of Monmouth (viz. 
in the Lib, LanJav.) connecting them with Caer- 
leon. They were invented certainly before Gil- 
das's time. The amplification of the persecuted 
priest into the legend of Amphibalus is a twelfth 
century fiction. He is first found by name in 
Geoffrey of Monmouth and is conjectured to have 
arisen out of St. AJban's cloak (ainphibcUus). His 
" inventio," and his miracles, appear to date from 
the time of William of St. Alban's. St. Alban of 
Verulamium is frequently confounded in the 
martyrologies with 

(2) Albanus of Mentz, martyred at Mentz no 
one knows when, accoi'ding to Baeda under Dio- 
cletian also, according to Sigebert (in Chron.), 
who says he had been driven from Philippi with 
Theonistus its bishop, in 425, and respecting 
whom Rabanus Maurus goes so far abroad as to 
call him an African bishop fiying from Hunneric, 
and whose day is June 21 (Uiiron. June 21), 
as the British St. Alban's is June 22. St. Al- 
b«in of Britain, and Gildas, St. Patrick, and 
St. Petroc, are the four British saints who found 
entrance into Saxon and into earlv Continental 
calendars. ' [A. W. H.) 

ALBERHT. (I) King of East Anglia in 749. 
On the death of Elfwald he divided the kingdom 
with Hunbenna (Sim. Dun. M. ff, B. 662). 

(2) (Aldberht, Chr. Sax.) Abbot of Ripon : he 
succeeded abbot Botwin in 786 ; was probably 
present at the legatine Council of the North, held 
in September 787, the acts of which were signed 
by an abbot Aldberich, He died in the autumn 
of the same year (Sim. Dun. J/. H. B, 666 ; Spel- 
man, Concilia^ i. 301). 

(8) Archbishop of York. See Ethelberht. 
See also Aldberht; Aluderht; Eadderht. 

(4) The ninth abbot of Glastonbury in Malmes- 
bury's list ; dated 712. [S.] 

ALBINA, daughter-in-law of Melania, the 
friend of Ruffinus, and mother of St. Melania, a 
wealthy and devout Roman ladv (Pall. Hist. 
Laus. 118, 120). Shortly l>efore 'the takin.? of 
Rome by Alaric she retired with her dausfhter 
and Pinianus, her son-in-law, to Africa ; and after 
seven years there to Jerusalem, where they be- 
came acquainted with Pelagius. There, probably, 
•he dietl (Aug. de Orat. I. Epp. 124, 5, 6 ; Hier. 
Ep. 143). In these passages Albina, not Albinus, 
appears to be the correct reading. [I. G. S.] 


ALBINUS. (1) An Englishman (Bcle, 
ff. E. V. 20) brought up at Canterbury in the 
monastery of S. Augustine under abbot Adrian, 
whom he succeeded according to Bede in 710. 
He was instructed in Latin and Greek by Adrian 
and Theodore. Bede was induced by him to 
undertake his Ecclesiastical History, towards 
which Albinus contributed his own knowledge 
of the period of the Conversion. This was 
communicated to Bede through Nothelm, who 
had been sent to Rome to search the archives 
there for materials. Bede's letter of thanks to 
Albinus is still extant. According to W. Thorn 
and Elmham, Albinus was blessed as abbot by 
archbishop Brihtwald on the 22nd of April, 
708, and died in 732. He was buried in the 
church of S. Mary under the abbey of S. Au- 
gustine, and was afterwards translated in the 
time of abbot Wido. His name is attached as 
witness to a charter of Ethelbert II., king of 
Kent, Feb. 20, 732 (Bede, H, E, Praef. and v. 
20; Elmham, ed. Hanlwicke 294, 295, 301). 

(2) [Alcuin.] [S.] 

ALBOIN, king of the Langobardi, or Lom- 
bards, and founder of the kingdom subject to that 
people in Italy, was the son of that Audoin under 
whom the Lombards emerge from obscurity to 
occupy Pannonia, invited by the emperor of 
Constantinople, in accordance with the usual 
Byzantine |K)licy, as a check to the Gepidae. 
In the wars with the latter nation Alboin 
first appears. The confused accounts of them 
which Procopius preserves exhibit the tribe and 
their prince as rude and ferocious barbarians, 
and personally Alboin appears to have possessed 
the qualities which would fit him to be the leader 
of such a tribe. He is described as *' vir bellis 
apt us et per omnia strenuus " (Paul Diac. 1, 27) 
(a man well fitted for warfare and every way 
energetic), ** statura procerus et ad bella per- 
agenda toto corpore coaptatus " (id. ii. 28) ("he 
was tall of stature, and his whole frame was 
built for a life of war "). That he was per- 
sonally a Christian, though an Arian, is proved 
by a letter from a Gallic bishop to his first wife, 
a Gallic princess, which deplores, not his hea- 
thenism, but his heresy (Sirmond. Cone, Gall. i.). 
The passages which might seem to imply that 
the Lombards were not converted till the end of 
the century, either i-cfer to a conversion from 
Arianism, or speak merely of some part of Alboin*s 
mongrel host. Procopius distinctly calls them 
" I^ngobardos, jam tum Chrbtianos " (who were 
by that time already Christians). 

Succeeding to his father's power, Alboin 
accomplished, by the aid of the Avars, the 
destruction of the Gepidae. The characteristic 
story of the circumstances which led to his 
marriage with Rosamond, the daughter of Cuui- 
mund their king, may be legendary, but the 
fact of the marriage is rescued from uncer- 
tainty by the subsequent notoriety of his wife 
(see Gibbon, c. xlv.). The conquest of Italy fol- 
lowed. An expedition of 2200 Lombards about 
fifteen years before, had been despatched to the 
assistance of Narses, in virtue of some kind of 
agreement,* and tempted as well by a solid bribe 

• Langobardi Jampridiem foederaU (llsaL l>iac liL 1); 
ayamiaBtXf rji t^< buMtXf^^*''^ •Vi^«i| (PfOOOp. Iv. 26). 
These expressions throw light on the obecure words cl 
Nicetius, Bishop of Treves (Sirmond. L Cone, tiiUL}, 
" Ipse Imperator snis ipram (m. Alboinom) pnqwoit.'* 


« by the ragu* attnctions of Italy. Their be- 
ktrioar may be reasoaably suppoised to hare 
been the 6nt caaic of the hatred which hence- 
iiMth attached to their name in Italy, and con- 
fimu the idea already formed of their character 
{vfAs rp iWn it r^v iiuray irapavo/ii/f, rhs re 
MQ^ofiias, tus &y ^rr^otffv iiftiriirpturay, ical yv- 
ft^i TM CIS ri Upii Kora^tvyowrais fiiaC^fifvoi 
iwXiici^ov, their conduct was marked by uni- 
rrrval license, and in particalar they burnt 
crerr dwelling which they came to, and violated 
the women who had taken refuge in sanctuary, 
Procop. IT. X\y, They had been dismissed on this 
account by Narses, but they had doubt le!» car- 
ried home such reports of Italy as would render 
lupertluous the specimens of its produce with 
which Xanies is said to have accompanied the 
invitation which now called them to avenge his 
injuries. That invitation is itself doubtfully au- 
thentic, and is rejected by Muratori {Annal. ann. 
667). But it is supported by historical ana- 
lo2ie« and br the direct evidence of the majority 
of writers,^ and is therefore accepted by the mo- 
dems ( Troja^ lib. iv. 7), in spite of the silence of 
the Greek authors, and some incoherence in one 
of the chief witnesses (Anastas. Vit. Joann. iii. ; 
Muratori, iii. 233). Alboin's army was hetero- 
jCeoeoQii. Besides 20,000 Saxons accompanied by 
their families, who recrossed the Alps after the 
<.<>ni|ue!(t, Muratori has deduced {Antich. ft. i. 
di<s. I) from Italian topography the presence of 
the Bararians, and Paul (ii. 26) adds distinctly 
thf names of several other tribes. The number 
of the army is unknown. That it was consider- 
sble is shown by the fact that it was in reality a 
mij^ration of the whole tribe, and by the extent 
to which it changed the character and arrange- 
ments of population in Italy. Alboin left Pan- 
coaia in April, 568, the passes were unguarded, 
4D i h4* learnt from his own success, the need of 
•f-rurioz bis rear and the frontier of his future 
k.ijrdom bv entrusting the defence and govern- 
n«-at of \enetia Primal, his fin>t conquest, to 
<r:«nlf hi< nephew, with the title of duke and 
tri'* <-<immand of those whom he should himself 
«>-!rft .imong the most eminent of the "Farae** 
r tii'l'Ie.-i (Paul. ii. ix.). From this point the con- 
. :«*>t was rapid. In Liguria (the western half 
'•! Qorth Italy), Genoa, with some cities of the 
U-vif ra, alone escaped. Pavia held out for three 
j'^r* : we m;ty suppose that its siege whs not 
v-ry viiiToroasly prnsed ; and as a matter of fact, 
'^ know that a great part of AHwin's force was 
>'tineii in flying squadrons which ravaged the 
rt-uBtry southwards all through Tuscany and 
.'.fniiLi, to so great a distance that Paul men- 
tiuu ICome and Ravenna as almost the onlv ex- 
'"cptiooA to the devastating inroad." The con- 
{Qfst of a part of S. Italy and the foundation of 
the duchr of Beneventum under Zotto, has been 
by mm*" attributed, without certain evidence, to 
t&i« interraL The death of Alboin followed the 
Call Of Pari.-u If an inter\'al of three venrs and 


•it months is to be allowed between the two 
cTents as Muratori thinks ;* at any rate nothing 
M known of its history. The story of his death 



M Vita ^oK. Ui. ; Muratori. Sarit>t- Itnl. iiL 
IB; MtUitoa. ff. S. Jsidnrii, I Wn (nL 1797); Isidore 
«CSeT;Ile. .♦. /jtdoni tkriMinm. (ed. Koooelli, 1787). 

• * iBTMti* is Paul's wonL 

* Vr. ItoL L 435a; tmt tn AnntL ad ann. 673, a dtf- 
appviara to be takm. 

is like that of his early life in the picture which 
it gives of a thoroughly barbaric society, where 
the scull of an enemy is used as a drinking-cup, 
and the men hold their banquets apart from the 
women. It may be read in Gibbon's forty-fifth 
chapter. Paul avouches that the cup was still 
to be seen in his own day. 

Alboin reigned so short a time in Italy that we 
can form little idea of his policy towards the con- 
quered peoj)le. His protection of the bishop of 
Treviso (Paul. Diac ii. xii.) to whose praver he 
granted all the possessions of his see, exhibits Kim as 
clement ; and although we are told that he vowed 
he would lay Pavia in ruins, it appears that at 
the last moment he relented and spared the city 
whose obstinate resistance had so much exasper- 
ated him (id. A. xxvii.). The fi&vourable view 
which these facts suggest would be confirmed by 
an incidental expression in Paul, ** populis ex- 
tinctis, exceptis his regionibus quas Albuinus 
ceperat'* (the population destroyed, except in 
those districts which Alboin himself had con- 
quered) (ii. XX xii.), and opposed more feebly by 
the negative evidence that no beneficial institu- 
tion or law is ascribed to him : or by suggesting 
that perhaps the anecdote of the bishop of Tre- 
viso becomes somewhat suspicious when we re- 
member that the bishops of Aquileia and Milan 
tied from the conqueror. The cruelties which 
gave the l^mbards their reputation seem to be 
proved only agiiinst his successors. 

It would seem that Alboin left behind him a 
hero's memory, not in the land of his conquests, 
but in the country of his birth, for Paul tells us 
that in his own time among the Bavarians, of 
whom Alboin had led a band into Italy, whose 
frontiers touched those of the kingdom which 
he founded, and whom a common enmitv to the 
East Franks linked to some degree to the Lom- 
bards, the praises of Alboin were still repeated, 
** hactenus etiam apud Baioariorum gentem .... 
eius liberalitas celebratur :" and a cei*tain duke 
of the Veronese march, who opened the tomb 
of Alboin and took from it some of its orna- 
ments, found an occasion for the vanity common 
to all men, as Paul quaintly puts it, in the 
hoitst that he had seen Alboin, ** Alboin se vidi^se 
I jactalwt." 

The chief authority for the life of Alboin, 
Paulus Diaconus, lived towai*ds the eod of the 
8th century, in the last days of the Lombniti 
monarchy ; hut as oue of his ancestors served in 
i the invading army, his account of the contjut'st 
may be more authentic than that of an aunalist 
writing so long after the event would other\vi.>e 
be. [E. S. T.] 

ALCHFLEDA, a daughter of Oswin, king 
of Northumbria, by his wife Eanfleda. She mar- 
rie«l Peada, king of the Middle Anglos, iu O.'iJ, 
he having become a Christian under the influcni^ 
of her father f»ud brother. Bede s|>eakH of her 
as being implicate*! in the nmrder of Peada 
(Be«le, //. /:. iii. 21, 24). [S.] 

ALCHFKITH (1) (Alchfrid, Aliifrid, 
Aluchfiud, Ealfuii>, Alfuii>, Ai/tfuid). Son 
of Oswiu, king of Northumbria. He married 
Cyniburga, daughter of Penda, and was instru- 
mental in bringing hi> brother-in-law Peada to 
baptism. He took fiart with his fit her in the 
battle of Win wftd, in which Penda fell, and heema 
i to have been admitte«l by him to a share in the 


royal title and power. The period of his influ- (5) (Alhmund, Alkmijkd) The martyr. Of 
enoe in Northambria is marked by the rise of this saint, whfb is commemorated on the ll>th of 
Wilfrid, who had been brought up in the house- March, hardly anything can be positively stated, 
hold of Oswiu, and on his return from Rome in According to the hagiographers, he was the torn 
658 was taken by Alchfrith for his chief friend of Alcred, king of Northumbria, who was put to 
and advii>er. He bestowed on him lands at ^tan- death, as stated by Simeon of Durham, in 800, 
forde, and a monastery at Ripon which he had by the servants of Eardulf. (Sim. Dun. M, H, Ji. 
before given to Scottish monks. Alchfrith took 671 ; Flor. Wig. 547.) His claim to the honours 
8 more decided part than his father in the change of martyrdom are not explained, but he must 
of the Paschal Custom at the council of Stren- have become very early an object of veneration, 
shall in 664, and the same year sent Wilfrid to as a church at Shrewsbury was founded under 
France to be consecrated bishop. Some time after his dedication by Ethelfleda, the daughter iA 
this probably, Alchfrith took up arras agamst Alfred. According to the tradition which if 
his father (Bede, iii. 14) perhaps in alliance with given by Alban Butler from a MS. sermon in his 
his Mercian kinsfolk. He now disappears from own possession, Aikmund's remains were fiirt 
history. Ecgfrith, his brother, succeeds Oswiu buried at Lilleshull, and thence translated to 
in 670 ; no mention being made of Alchfrith, Derby. The church founded by Etheltieda was 
whence we conclude that he was either dead or endowed as a college for ten prebendaries by king 
in exile. According to Simeon of Durham, Osric, Edgar, but after the Conquest the college was 
who succeeded to the Northumbrian throne in suppressed, and the abbey of LilleshuU founded 
718, was a son of Alchfrith. As there seems to out of its revenues. Several churches in Derby- 
have been a tradition at Gloucester that Osric, shire and Shropshire are dedicated to S. Alk- 
king of the Huiccas, the founder of the monas- mund (^Actn SS. Boil. March iii. p. 47 * Jfon. 
tery there, was identical with this king cf Aryji vi. 262). [S.] 
Northumbria, it is not improbable that Alch- ALCHRED, king of Northumbria. He was 
frith had taken refuge m Mercia. He must not ^^^ ^^ Yjiuv^iu, a d^cendant of Ida, but not in 
be confounded with Aldtnth, another son of the direct rojal line. He succeeded Moll in 765, 
Oswiu, who became king of Northumbria in 685, ^^ ^j^^ exclusion of his son. He married a wift 
who was an enemy of Wilfrid, and an upholder ^^^^ q^ ^^^^ ^^ Ofgeofu, in 768. A letter from 

*"/. *A^^f'*^^**^'V°^: V ^"^^ y«* *u* ^"^ "*, the royal couple to bishop Lullus is preserved 

Alchfrith, Oswald, the founder of Pewhore, and ^mong the letters of S. Bonifece, in which they 

king of Huiccia, was another son and Kyneburga ^i^^„^ j^j^ ^^^ his presents and request his prayers, 

abbess of Gloucester, a daughter. Alchfnth ^^^ j,., assistance to the ambassadors whom they 

would thus be ancestor of the viceroys of the ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^ Charles. They pment him with 

Huiccas, who were famous foundew of mouw- ^^^,^^ "sagos "and a gold ring. Lappenbei^ 

teries in the 8th and 9th centuries (Bede^.^. i:. j^^ identified him with the king of Northumbria 

*"• ^t' l^'^^d d^' 7; ^^ » .^**'?*' }\ ^Mndt, ^^ ^1^^^^ s willehad applied for leave to go as 

cap. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 ; J/onas*icon Anrfl. i. 542). ^ missionary to the Frisians. Alchred, according 

(•) (AtTRlTH Ealmfrith) This name is to the * Life of Willehad,' assembled his bi^hops, 

borne by a disciple of Wilfnd who w^ ^^^ ^^^^j. ^^^^^.^ deliberation sent him to the 

m his negotiations with Aldfrith, king of North- ^^^.j^ j^ 77^ he was deposed by his nobles and 

umbna, under the name of " Magister Alfridus,' Vanished. He took refuge first at Bamboi-ough, 

and who is probably the same learned teacher to ^^^ afterwards with Cynoht, king of the Picta. 

whom Aldhelm wrote an epistle wngra^^^^ ^-^ son Alhmund is said to have accomivinitd 

^*'!^t!^''^^"^°^'^'"^.HTl*??^¥'^• ^•"•'-^''•''r^^^ him in exile. [Alchmcxd, (5).] (Sim. Dun. 

Aldhelm, Ep. ad Ealhfndum). [i>.] ^ jf ^ g^g^ gg4 . Bonifac. Ep. 119 ; I-apj^eii- 

A T r.uTiirTTXTi^ „x /A r- x berg, Hist. Eng.ed. Thorpe, i. 215.216.) [S.] 

ALCHMUND (I) (Alkmund, Ealhmund). *' •^ '^ . x u j 

The ninth bishop of Hexham; consecrated in ALCIBIADES, of Apamea, a propagator of 

767 with archbishop Ethelberht of York, April heretical doctrines and trafficker in professW 

24. He died Sept. 7, 781, and was buried near spiritual powers, who found his way to RoiM 

his predecessor Acca. An account of his trans- from the valley of the Orontes (cf. Juv. Sai, 

lation and of miracles attributed to him is given iii. 62) in the time of Hippolytus, in the e.irly 

by Ailred of Rievaulx in his * History of the part of the third century. If we are to accept 

Saints of Hexham.' (Sim. Dunelm. M H. B. the statement of Hippolytus, Alcibiades was led 

663-665 ; Ailred, Saints of Hexham, in Raine*s to Rome by what he had heard of the heretical 

3/(rmoria/so///(?j:Aam, 1. 190-197; Mabillon, ilcia teaching of Callistus, then bishop of Roms^ 

iS.>'. Ord. S. Ben. saec. iii. p. 1, pp. 214, 215). and his school. On this ground-work he coi- 

(2) The thirteenth bishop of Winchester : ceived the hope of erecting a more subtle philo> 

he attended the council of Clovcsho in 803 with sophical system, composed of elements derived 

four iibbots and two priests. His name is at- from the Ebionites, the Pythagoreans, Easten 

tached to several charters from 802 to 805. (FI. Magicians, and Jewish Cabbali&ts. He brought 

Wig. ^f. H. B. 619 ; Kemble, C. D. v. 65, &c.) with him as his credentials *'the book of Eldbt- 

(8) An abbot of this name attended the coun- sal" (or " Helcesai," Euseb. vi. 38), received 

cil of Clovesho in 803 amongst the cleigy of the from the hands of an angel. The history of thll 

diocese of Leicester. He was evidently a person volume and what we learn of its contents is is 

of mark, for he was present at the legatine striking correspondence with the modern * Book 

council of 787, and attested charters of Ot& and of Mormon.' Alcibiades was openly met ssdj 

KenulfofMercia from 789 to 803. (Kemble, C.2>. successfully resisted by Hippolytus, and hii 

i. 187, V. 64; Spelman, Cone. i. 301, 325.) heresy ai>pears to have been speedilv and effec* 

(4) King of Kent, father of Egberht, king of tually crushed. See Elcesaites. (kippolvtoL 

Wessez. PhUosophum. lib. iz. c 8, 12; Euseb. H. M 



d 38 ; Theod. Haeret, Fah, ii. 7 ; Epip. Haer. 
xii. by. The untroftworihy Nicephoms (i7. E, 
T. 24) makes Alcibiadet an opponent of the 
Lkttaites. [E. V.] 

ALCDfUS AVITU8. [Avitds.] 

ALCUIN (Ealwine, Alchwin, Alchnin, Alqui- 
III, FUccns Alhinus) ; Alcolne ( V. S. Willibrordi 
cap. xuiT. ** Carmiger indoctus cecinit hoe Al- 
coiiM reniu ") Alcninos (** Qui legat, Alcuinnm, 
dicat rogo Christe, tuere. Epigr. 279 '*). Alcnin 
was bom of noble Northumbrian parentage about 
7.'i5. Tha exact date of his birth and tha names 
of his parnits are unknown, but the year 735 is 
accepted br the best authorities, Mabillon and 
Froben, as an approximation ; and the position of 
his £unilr is determined bv his own words. He 
VM, he telU us ( V, S. WUUbrordi, lib. i. c.l), the 
hereditary representatiye of the noble house from 
which S. Willibrord, the apostle of the Frisians, 
sprang. As such he possessed and ruled a little 
munastic society which had been founded by 
Willigis, the father of S. Willibrord, in honour 
nf S. Andrew, on one of the promontories of the 
Yorkshire coast between the Humber and the 
North Sea. 

He wai brought up from infancy in the school 
toondcd by archbishop Egbert in connexion with 
the church of York. Here he receired instruc- 
tion both from the archbishop, himself the dis- 
ciple and friend of Bade, and from Ethelberht, the 
master of the school, who became archbishop in 
767. The nature o{ the education thus obtained 
iideacribed by the biographer of Alcnin, who 
dnw his information from Sigulf, a pupil in the 
luue school, as beginning with grammar and 
leading up through the liberal discipline of lite- 
rature and philosophy to the study of the Holy 
Srriptnrea. It inrolred certainly a fair acquaint- 
aace with the Latin poets, some knowledge of 
the Cireek Fathers, handed down from Theodore 
tod Adrian, and as much Hebrew as could be 
learned from the study of S. Jerome. The library 
<-t York contained books in all the three Ian- 
^uA^es, including the works of Aristotle and 
< :.-«ro (Ale de Pontiff. \\. 1525-1562). 

Alcuin was the favourite pupil of Egbert, 
traf ii Miid to have presaged great things for 
b:in. and who prorided for his advancement in 
f'^ular AS well as theological learning. With 
Kthelbert, before his promotion, it is probable 
t:;iit Alcuin visited Rome, and on his journey 

• r fLt a ihort time in study at one or two French 

He received the tonsure early in life, and was 

• rdained deacon by Ethelbert soon after 767, on 
tiM feast of the Purification. A second visit to 
Italy, on a mission from Ethelbert to Charles 
the Great, falls probably between 767 and 780: 
'•a the occasion either of this or of the earlier 
n»jt Alcuin heard at Pavia a disputation between 
» learned Jew and Peter of Pisa, who was Charleses 
iutnictor io grammar. The king seems to have 
ttutiaeui^hed Alcnin with favour. It is uncer- 
Uin whether Alcnin succeeded Ethelbert in the 
crurfi^ of the school of York when the latter be- 
cune archbishop, or at a later period ; but he was 
employed by him in conjunction with Eanbald in 
4irerting the architectural works proceeding at 
York, and when Ethelbert retired from the archi- 
CMscopata in 780, waa intrusted with his library. 
1m new arckbiilMp Eanbald lent Alcuin to Rome 



for his pall in 780. On this journey he fell in 
again with Charles at Parma, where he spent 
Easter 781, and was pressed by him to leave 
England and attach himself to his court. Having 
completed his errand, Alcuin obtained from his 
archbishop and king leave of temporary absence, 
and accepted Charles's invitation ; joined his 
court about 782, and remained for eight years a 
member of his household, taking charge of the 
Palatine schools and being provided for by the 
gift of the monasteries of S. Lupus at Troyes, 
and Bethlehem at Ferriferes, with the cell of S. 
Judoc on the coast of the Morini. During this 
period Alcuin was busily employed in teaching, 
in writing and revising books for educational and 
ecclesiastical uses, and in organizing schools on 
the model of the Palatine school, in which Charles 
might carry out his design of restoring the know- 
ledge of the sacred languages, the text of the 
Bible and service books, and the moral rigour of 
ecclesiastical discipline. How laboriously Alcuin 
fulfilled the duties thus incurred, the list of his 
works will show : the extent of his influence is 
proved by his letters, and the success of his work 
by the literary history of the following century. 

In 790 Alcuin returned to Korthumbria, pos- 
sibly with a view to the security of his property, 
and perhaps with credentials from Charles. Eth- 
elred, who had afler ten years of exile and im- 
prisonment, just recovered his throne, attempted 
to retain him at his court, and the love of his 
country, which appears strongly in his letters, 
might have induced him to remain. But the ne- 
cessities of the Church compelled him to return. 
The heresy of the Adoptianists under Felix and 
Elipandus on the one hand, and the conduct oi 
the empress Irene on the subject of image wor- 
ship, hud roused the religious instincts of Charles. 
Alcuin rejoined him in 792 as the champion of 
orthodoxy, and in conjunction with other English 
scholars, acting also, according to Simeon of 
Durham, who repeats the words of an apparently 
contemporaneous historian, as the representative 
of the English bishops, he took a leading part in 
the important measui*es which wei*e completed 
in the council of Frankfort. He never returned 
to England, but spent the remaining years of his 
life in the reformation of the religious houses 
which were intrusted to him by Charles, and in 
the cultivation of that learning and sanctity 
which have made him a l>one of contention be- 
tween the rival orders of monks and canons. 
He governed the monastery of S. Martin at Tours 
with the power and name apparently of abbot 
[Ep. 81, cd. Migne], although he was still a deacon ; 
and althoui^h he was an admirer of the monastic 
ideal, he had never taken the vow of a true 
monk, he retained his monasteries of Ferri^res 
and Troves, and about the year 800 undertook 
the charge of another at Cormary on the Indrc. 
Shortly before his death he founded a hospital 
for pilgrims at Duodecim Pontes near Troves. 
As old ajie grew upon him he withdrew from 
work, and with the imperial permission divided 
his preferments among his disciples. He died 
on Whit Sunday, May 19, at Tours, and was 
buried by the archbishop within the church of 
S. Martin, not outside as he had desired. 

This short notice comprises nearly all that 
can be said to be known of the chronology and 
sequence of events of Alcuin's life, and it is im- 
neceasary to do more than mention the vexed 




questious regarding it which have been debated 
at great length by Mabillon, Chifflet, and Froben, 
but which, owing to the materials brought to light 
by their discussions and to the growth of a more 
critical chronology, are questions no longer. Such 
were the supposed identity of Alcuin with Al- 
binus, abbot of S. Augustine's; and the notion 
that he was a disciple of Bede, which was main- 
tained on the hypothesis that Alcuin lived to be 
a hundred years old, or that Bede lived until 
the year 760. The date of Alcuin's death has 
ilso been questioned, owing to mention made of 
him apparently as alive as late as the year 815, 
to which Mabillon was at one time inclined to 
give credit. But the evidence of contemporary 
annalists is conclusive, and the later mention 
must be set aside, as deficient in authority, or 
as referable to other persons of the name of 
Albinus. A question which has been debated 
with much more zeal and critical power, is 
whether Alcuin was a monk or a secular clerk. 
Mabillon and Froben argue that he was a monk, 
on the ground principally of his being a member 
of the church of York, which they assume to 
have been Benedictine, of the high admiration 
which he professed for monasticism, and of the 
position of abbot which he held in several mo- 
nasteries. On the other side is arrayed the evi- 
dence of his biographer, who records him as 
standing to the order of canons in the same 
position in which Benedict of Aniane stands to 
the monks, and the fact that his disciples and 
successors in his several churches were chiefly 
canons. The positions of Mabillon and Froben 
are very questionable. The church of York was 
certainly not monastic or Benedictine in such a 
sense as to exclude secular clergy who were 
members of the archbishop's court and house- 
hold; it was most probably a mixed society 
necessarily containing clerks, incidentally con- 
taining monks : there is no evidence for regard- 
ing Alcuin as a monk, much for regarding him 
as a secular deacon. Again, Alcuin's professions 
of admiration for monasticism are to be inter- 
preted rather of an ideal which he felt himself 
too busy and too worldly to aspire to before he 
grew old. It is unnecessary to add that the 
office of ruler of a monastery could at this period 
be held by a secular, or even by a layman, and 
with or without the title of abbot. This title, 
although given him by Charles and others, Al- 
cuin seldom if ever assumes. What however 
seems decisive as to his profession during the 
greatest part of his life, is the evidence of his 
letters that he retained and spent his private for- 
tune in a way which would have been incompa- 
tible with a monastic character, even at a period 
when the rigour of monasticism was so far re- 
laxed as to allow a layman to be an abbot. 
Still it is possible, and by no means improbable, 
that he, like many other noble Northumbrians, 
received the monastic tonsure in preparation for 
death ; but there is no evidence that he did so. 
Froben is much less confident of his conclusion 
than Mabillon, but the matter would hardly 
have been so long debated without the spur of 
monastic zeal and jealousy. The question whether 
Alcuin was brother to Aquila, archbishop of 
Salzburg, is settled by Froben on very satisfactor}' 
grounds in the negative. 

The position of Alcuin in the maintenance and 
development of medieval learning is capable of 

distinct definition. The schools of Northumbria 
had gathered in the harvest of Irish learning, 
of the Franco-Gall i can schools still subsisting and 
preserving a remnant of classical character in 
the 6th century, and of Rome, itself now bar- 
barized. Bede had received instruction from the 
disciples of Chad and Cuthbert in the Irish studies 
on the Scriptures, from Wilfrid and Acca in the 
French and Roman learning, and from Benedict 
Biscop and Albinus in the combined and organ- 
ized discipline of Theodore. By his influence 
with Egbert, the school of York was founded, 
in it was centred neai'ly all the wisdom of the 
West, and its greatest pupil was Alcuin. Whilst 
learning had been growing in Northumbria, it 
had been declining on the continent : in the latter 
days of Alcuin, the decline of English learning 
began in consequence of the internal dissensions 
of the kings, and the early ravages of the Norse- 
men. Just at the same time the continent was 
gaining peace and organization under Charles. 
Alcuin carried the learning which would have 
perished in England, into France and Germany, 
where it was maintained whilst England relapsed 
into the state of ignorance from which it was de- 
livered by Alfred. Alcuin was rather a man of 
learning and action than of genius and contem- 
plation like Bede, but hb power of organization 
and of teaching was great, and his services to 
religion and literature in Europe, based indeed 
on the foundation of Bede, were more widely ex- 
tended, and in themselves inestimable. 

It is probably owing as much to the unhappy 
condition of England during the 9th century as 
to the more important position occupied by 
Alcuin on the continent, that few names of his 
English pupils have been preserved, compared 
with ihe numerous French scholars who were 
indebted to him, for some part at least of their 
education. Many of his English scholars fol- 
lowed him to France, and fouud a more favour- 
able field of work there than at home. His most 
famous English pupil was Eanbald II., archbishop 
of York. The names of Osulf, Calwinus, Witzo, 
Waldramn, Raganhard, and a few others, have 
come down to us. Fridugis, afterwards his suc- 
cessor at Tours, and, later, abbot of 8. Bertin, 
was another. Sigulf, the priest of York, his 
successor at Ferri^res, upon whose information 
the ancient life of Alcuin is founded, must have 
been rather a companion than a pupil. Amongst 
his scholars in the Palatine school were Charles 
himself, with his sons Charles, Pipin, and Lewis, 
his sister Gisela, and his daughter of the same 
name ; Angilbert, atlterwards abbot of S. Riquier, 
Adalhard, abbot of Corvey, Rigbod, archbishop 
of Treves, Rictrudis, a noble nun of Chelles, and 
Gundrada, the sister of Adalhard. His most 
famous pupils during his later years at Tours 
were Rabanus Maurus, afterwards archbishop of 
Mentz; Hatto, abbot of Fulda; Haimo, bishop 
of HalberstAdt; Samuel, abbot of Ix)rsch, and 
j afterwards bishop of Worms ; Adalbert, abbot of 
' Ferriferes ; Aldric, bishop of Sens ; and Amala- 
rius, deacon of Mctz. The connexion of Fer- 
ri^res with the school of York was maintaine<i as 
late as the middle of the 9th century, when we 
find abbot Lupus in correspondence with the 
archbishop and abbot of York. 

A distinctive peculiarity of Alcuin's association 
with his pupils and friends is found in the as- 
sumed names under which they write to and 


about oiM another. Alcuin is himself Flacrns 
Albians, the Horace of the society ; Charles is 
DaiTid ; Angilbert is Homer ; Adalhard, Antony ; 
Amalarius is Symposios ; Hatto is Bonosus ; 
Ricnlf is Damaetas; Archbishop Eanbaid is 
Simeon ; Fridugis, Nathanael ; Aldrad of Milan 
li Peter ; Rigbod is Macarius ; another prelate is 
called Onias; another, an English one, Spera- 
tos. Some of the names are formed by a play on 
the proper name of the bearer. Arno, archbishop 
uf Salzburg, is Aquila ; Withso is Candidas ; Ra- 
banns is called Maurus, because of his swarthy 
oomplexion ; Bruno is another Candidus, perhaps 
by antiphrasis; Hechstan is Alta Petra; Au- 
thropos, Stratocles, Theophilus, Mopsus, and Gal- 
licellula, cannot be identified, but it would be 
ea»y to suppose the two hrst translations of 
Mann and Ludwig or Hereberht. Of the ladies, 
Gi^la was Lucia ; Rictrudis, Columba ; and 
Gundrada, Kulalia. 

The foregoing lists comprise the names of 
nearly all Alcuin's most regular and frequent 
correspondents ; to them most of hi^ letters are 
Jtddressefi, and several of his works dedicated. 
Be»i«les them, however, we find amongst those to 
whom he wrote. Pope Adrian 1., Ethelred and 
Kardulf, kings of Northumbria, Offa, Ecgferth, 
and Kenulf, kings of Mercia; the patriarchs 
George of Jerusalem and Paulinus of Aquileia ; 
archbishops Ethelhard of Canterbury, Laidrad 
uf Lyttns, Nifridius of Narbonne, and Theodulf of 
Orleansi, his great competitor in the restoration 
q{ learning in France ; bishops Kinbert of Win- 
diester, Ethelbert of Hexham, Higbald of Lindis- 
fame, Tidferth of Dunwich, Alhesurd of Elmham, 
and Remedius of Coire; abbots Benedict of 
Aniane, Moroald of Farfa, and Friduin of Wear- 
roouth ; the monks of Wearmouth, Jarrow, Lin- 
disfarne, and ^\'l>ithem ; Colcu the reader, and 
Jcweph, who was probably a clerk of York, and 
acted as Alcuin's agent in the management of 
hi» property. 

Amongst the historical subjects on which light 
Lft thrown by Alcuin's letters may be enumerated 
the (ODquests of Charles, and the extension of 
th<> Church through them among the Germans, 
Wfiiis, Slaves and Avars (A'/>/). 3, 33, 36, 39, 
I".'?, riV), the jealousy of Offa and Charles 
(f'pp. 8, 47, 48, 49X the devastation of Lindis- 
t'lrne by the Norsemen (^Epp. 9, 13, 14, 15, 16), 
the archbishopric of Lichfield and the troubles 
of Ethelhard {Epp, 10, 57, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 
IWy, the revolutions of Northumbria (A/>p. 11, 
47. tiO, 61, 115, 116), the process of electing the 
ar< rihj!iho|is of York (A'p/>. 54, 55), the intnxluc- 
t:»n *i( H/»raan improvements into the service of 
the churches of England {^Kpp. 65, 1), his friendly 
rrKtir>04( with the imperial family {Epp. 120, 
l.'lK and with the Iri^h schools (Z//). 225), and 
the h«*re^y of the Adoptianists. 

Tne works of Alcuin are divided by Froben 
into i>even classes, to which may be added those 
'i-utt folly and more erroneously attributed to 

1. Ot' these the most important are the letters, 
of which much has been said above. The first 
stt<^mpt at the collection of these was made by 
Caoifins, who printed 67 from a St. Gall MS. in 
h^ I.ectiones ; to these several were added by 
Ui»her. Martene and Durand, Baluze, and 
i/Achery. Mabillon discovered and published 
S6 from a Batisbon MS., in his Analecta ; and a 



very large addition was made to them by abbot 
Froben from MSS. at Salzburg and elsewhere, 
which brings up the number in the editions of 
Alcuin's works to between two and three bun- 
dred. Several others exist still in MS. (especi- 
ally in the Cotton collection), and among them 
some of considerable interest. 

2. The exegetical works of Alcuin are princi- 
pally compilations from the fathers. They are 

(1) on Genesis, addressed to Sigulf, and drawn 
from S. Jerome, S. Gregory, and S. Ambrose ; 

(2) on the penitential and gradual Psalms, ad- 
dressed to Amo ; (3) on Canticles, to Daphnis ; 
(4) on Ecclesiastes to Onias, Candid us, and Na- 
thanael, chiefly from S. Jerome ; (5) on Hebrew 
names to Charles, compiled from Bede ; (6) on S. 
John, to Lucia and Columba, taken largely from 
Bede, Gregory, Augustine, and Ambrose ; (7) on 
the Epistles to Titus, Philemon, and the Hebrews, 
from S. Jerome and S. Chrysostom, the latter 
through the translation of Mutianns ; (8) on the 
Apocalypse, published for the first time by 
Cardinal Mai from a Vatican MS. 

3. The dogmatic writings of Alcuin are — (1) 
De Fide Sanctae et fndividuae Trinitatis, addressed 
to Charles, written about 802, and being a con- 
centration of S. Augustine's works on the sub- 
ject ; (2) Twenty-eight questions on the Tri- 
nity, treated in the same way, and addressed to 
Fndugis; (3) on the procession of the Holy 
Ghost, addressed to Charles, a collection of tes- 
timonies from the fathers; (4) two works 
against Felix of Urgel, one in one book addressed 
to the abbots and monks of Septimania, composed 
of testimonies ; the second in seven addressed to 
Felix himself, and containing much learning and 
independent argument; (5) Four books against 
Elipandus of Toledo, on the same subject and 

4. Alcuin's liturgical works are chiefly adap- 
tations or recensions of the parts of the service 
books. (1). Liber Sacramentorunij from the 
use of Touis ; (2) Ve Psalmorum t«t«, an arrange- 
ment of the psalms, and a few original prayers ; 

(3) Officid per ferias ; (4) De Baptismi caere- 
i/ioniis. With these are associated thi-ee books 
or letters on moral and mental philosophy. (1) 
I'e virtutif'us et vitiis^ from Augustine, addressed 
to Count Wide ; (2) De animae rutione^ to Eulalia, 
also from Augustine ; (3) De Confessione^ to the 
scholars of Martin's at Tours. 

5. The biographies of S. Martin, from Sulpi- 
cius ; of S. Vedast, S. Riquier, and S. Willibrord. 
The latter is interesting from the fact of the 
relationship between Alcuin and the saint. 

6. The poems of Alcuin are of a very varies! 
rharacter; they include prayers, hymns, inscn]>- 
tious for churches, altars, and books ; epitaphs, 
enigmas, and epigrams, triplets on Scripture 
history, and epistles to Leo III,, Charles, Angil- 
bert, Amo, and others of his correspondents. 

The most important and longest of the poems 
is that De I'ontificibus et Sanctis Ecclesiae Ebo- 
racensis^ in 1657 lines, giving an account of the 
church of York and its great men from the foun- 
dation to the accession of Eanbaid. The early 
part is ba.4ed on E5ede; but from the consecration 
of Egbert to the end, it is full of original infor- 
mation respecting the schools and library of 
York, the acts of the archbishops, cind the caicer 
of the author. In a few particulars it agrees 
with the chronicle of the Northumbrians, which 



vu UMd bj Simcoii of Durham for the eartr 
part of hii chrnoicle, aod it u the moat ancient 
lothoril)' for the period of which it IrtaU, 

T. The Opera Didatailica coniiit of dialogues 
on the labject* of gnunnur, orthognphy , rheto- 
ric *ad the Tirtnei, and dialectic; a diMtuaiop 

dialogue on laiiallaDeaiu Bobjectt betweeo 
Alcnin and Pipin. 

8. The m«t important of the " Open Dubia " 
» the Confano fdei, the anthorahip of wbich 
irai asserted to ha Alcuin's bf Uabilloii, with 
ceDtiderable ahow of argumeot aninat DailJ^, 
who declared that It was later thits the time 
of Anaelm. Iti bearing on the Eacharistic con- 
troFeraj, and on the doctrines of Clalrinism, haa 
imparted a aentimenc of pnrtisanship to all tbe 
crittciim OS th* (object. Mabillon's argument 
was Mtacked by Baanage on internal erideoce, 
but it wai bj no means (atlifactarilv refuted-, 
and nnleai the statemenU of Mihillon'aa to the 
date of the US. can be diiproTed, no lafficieut 
a^[UTiieQt from its contents can be addticed 
againat him. Tbe Ditpatatia J'wrDrtun is a 
dial<^De of tbe age of Alcuio, with no deter- 
minate marka of authorship. It is on religions 
QUttera geoerallj. 

Fiftjr-three propositions, ad acaetidoa Jvcenea ; 
a series of puiilei and arithmelioal problems, 


irlis of Beds also, and there ii nothing in 
to determine the authomhip. The rest of 
jpera dubia '* are poems of tttv mueh the 
character aa the anthentic ones.' 
The "openisuppoeita"are— (I) The Liber 

de d-ninit offieiit, a compilali 
Intent the 11th tenlurj), au 
reputatioD of Alcuiu; (2) fou 
which are elsewhere ascribed 

. u 

later date (m 
worthy of the 
miiiea, some of 
Bul Ihe De.icon, 


; and a few 

The share of Alcnin in the 
UM Carolmi i. another ve 
which the odium theologicum 
cannot be ditcnssed here; t> 


p«itiDii of the 
question, into 
iolnided. It 

that all argameats against it, bai 
new of the anthoritj of Horeden 

«d on the late- 

liii^'. \i^ 

* futile. 
The bibliographical history of Alcuin's work, 
would nil 1 Tolume. Many of the separate 
treatiies were printed in the 16lh century, but 
Ihe first attempt at a collected edition was that I 
of Do Chesne, Paris, 1G17. Afier this was pub- 
liihed, the Commentary on Gantitles was printed 
by Patrick Youug in 1638, sad lai^e acceuions | 
to Ihe number of letters and smaller treatises 

mperseded b^ Ihe splendid edition publiEhed in 
1777, by Froben, abbot of S. Emmeran's at 
Raliibon, which contained all that Germnnv 
conld supply In the wav of addition! to the 
edition of Dn Cheaoe. To this Caitlinal Mai 
added in 16.17 the Commentary on the Apo- 
calypse; and It is by no meani improbable that, ' 
as ia cerlamly the caae with the letters, other 
nail trentises may be still in MS. Tbe edition 


who dtrired hii iBfomulion fhMn Slgnlf, th 
companion and disciple of Alcnin. Thi* is printed 
Id Uabillon, Atta SS. Ord. Bewd. saec It. t. 1 ; 
in Sartua, Vit. SS. May 19 ; in the BoUandiH 
Acti, May It. pp. 33b-^iU; and in the editions 
of Du Chesne, Froben, and Migne. It ia a good 
specimen of a tecood-rvte medieval biographv. 
Mabillon's Elogiun and the life by Froben an 
both very good, and leave little to be desired in 
point of cHticiam. Bat tbere is no biography ol 
Alcuin at all corraaponding with the importanc* 
of bis position, and the data eiiating for drawio^ 
a picture of tlie times. Among minor works on 
the subject are Loreni, .dfcuin't LAen, 1820. 
translated into English by Slea; and Monoier. 
Alcuin et Hn> infiiience litUraire, religieute et 
potiiiqae chei let Francs, Paris 18^3. The article 
iu tilt Hiitoirelai^raireile la Fnuu>e,-roi.i 
295, Ac, is antiqaaled by Fmbei ' " ' 

ALDBEBHT (1) One of the bishop* of 
East Anglia at the period at wbich the Hiitorv- 
of Bede closes. 

Uia name is omitted in the list of the buhops 
of Dnnwich, to which it muat hare belonged, or 
else misplaced [ for the fifth bishop, to whom the 
name of Aldberht is giren must have been later 
than the time of Bede. 

(8) The 9th bishop of Hereford in the 
ancient lists. He aigns a charter of (Ma a> 
" electiu " in 777, and as biabop in 781. He 
died before the Legatioe Council of 787, which ia 
aigned by his successor Esne, or Aeiae. 

(3) An etheling of llie West Saioni, who re- 
belled i^inat or was persecuted by [na. In TS4 
he was driven into Surrey and Sussei, whither 
lua pursued him, nnd slew him In battle in Tib. 
C/ir. Suj. 7-H, 725. [S.] 

BEHT, a celebrated impostor oppoaad by St. 
Boniface, condemned in Ihe Council of Soiasons 
in T-M, and in that of Rome in 745. What b 
known of him is gathered entirely from St. Boni- 
Aice's letters. He is described as a Gaul by 
nation, but of what jiarentage it ia not ataled. He 
is called a new Simon Magus, who, while he 

moral life, and by hii empty preaching leading 
people antmv from the teaching of the Church, 
He used to set np creases and onlorieg in the 
fields, and to perauade the people to leave the 
I chntehes and frequent these places. He laid 
claim to such sanctity that he consecrated build- 
ings in his own name, and gave''" '^■" ' " 

He had r 

j befoD 

ualiy , 

episcopal c 
ham he bad deceived br hb 
is he considend himself of 
Apostles ; and when the 

], he told them that they 

all the 

'a Pldro: 
:ribed t< 

great appa- 
ratus 01 critical and historical matter, reprinted 
from Dn Chesne, Mabillon, Chifflet, and Froben. 
The life of Alcuin was written during the 
Mtttarj after hia death by ao aoonymona author. 

their lins before they disc 

The acta of (he Synod at Rome under Pop. 
Zachariai, in which Aldeberl. and another achla- 
matic named Clement, were condemned, are 
found at length in Boniface's Epistles, N'o. 50. 
Though they had precioualy been condemned, 
deprived, and cast into prison in a prorind^ 
Synod at Soissons, they were still leading the 

Cle astray. The sentence of the Synod at 
a, aigned by tbe Pope, aaren biahopt, nd 


■TBittRi priaU, canfiruied tfa< d«cklan of St. 
fiooifacc. uid thivitfaed excomrouoicition 
ipimt Aldtbvrl or May of bi* fullowen who 

mrau written hj Ald(btrt,coiaUtiiigof nn »oto- 
!4o^rapfaj, ■ letter, which ha profesKd to hira 
rec^iTed from our Lord through tha agency of 
5(. Htdutl, and ■ pnytt in which he ioTolccd 
eight Uigeli bj nune, wen prewrrtd by the 
?oyt. Two feanr snerwirdi he wrote 10 St. 
Booifan, orging him to make farther inquiution, 

*hiim icemj to have been then quite >uppreM*il. 
HiJmaa {Lalia Chriavmily, Bk. it. ch. a) cod- 
t'e»e> that he cauoot diicern, with loma ProteilaDt 
writer* of Gcrmiay, ereo M, Buiuen, in these 
AiKDre pciwu (Aldebert ud Clement} " ugi- 
eioni propheti uid roolate opponenla of Papal 
domiution, which waa artfulij and deliberately 
nuhlltbed bj Bonifiice—a preputnre Luther 
uJ CalTin. Kciiher the jealooaiei nor the 
politic achemei belong to the time. The respect 
if Boaiface for Rome wai Glial, not eerrile." 

Fur th* ongiiuil dacamMta with retpcct to 
Aldebert coonlt S. BaDifaLil Kpiit. ia Mimu- 
mfwia JUiyntiiu, BibliiMec. ftr. Gtrman. torn. 
[C. D.] 
ALDEOUNDIS, S. (Tent, "nobis war,") 
Urn ID Haisault about the year 630. She wai 
..r noble itwk, her father being St. Walbert or 
liulbert, Dtarlj nlatid to Clolhsire, her mother 
^ Bertilia. Wheo Hill a girl ahe devoted her- 
hH to a lib of Tirginitf. Being preiaed lij her 
parent* to marrT, >ta« replied, "I deaire a hni- 
band whoac eatatea are oeaTeD and earth and 
"^a. whou fanna wilt yield their cropa fo 

and will I 

■itb. If TOO an, mother, find n 


aftemarda ihe 1 

n h 

r home, found S. 

a»lu>, bi*h«p of M 

ht, at UaumoDt, 



him and St. Aub. 

rt, b 

uhop of Cambrai, 


ilted to the vow 

J of 

nun. She (hen 

o a waitf place 

on 1 

he Sambre, called 



now M,ubeug 

e, w 

ere ahe huilt a 


and iutituted 


»m ahe praid.^ 


fa greiit wi»dum, 


.be waa eipo-d 

lo t 

e attack, of her 

both men and 


M. Her acta are 


in three Ma liv 


Bat length by the 


,t.. hut they c 


ural that the | 

ace would give 

tie credit. There «emJ, however, no 

a doubt the i-rin 


facli. Her death 


rt, after much 


he.t. on Jannar 

J 30 

6M, thouKh the 

ue.ii.,Ded. Ud 

hii dHT ihe is comme- 



wjlh a duuble 


of the (>nt c1a». 

in Ireland (Mcording to William of HalmeahnrTi 
G. R. I. 52), or rather perhapi at lou (Bede, V. 
Cidhb. 24, Anop. I'. CvM. 28), where ha ac- 
qaired a love cf leantlDg and learned men. 

In ess he became king on the death of Zcg- 
frith ; and by hii pacific policy natored th* 
condition of the kingdom, which Ecgfrith had 
milled by hla wan. 

In 687 he wa* riilted by Adamnan, abbot of 
lona, who came to ranaom loma Iriih captJTM, 
ind presented hii book on the holy placei to 
him. Aldhelm, al*o. the abbot of Malmesbury, 
who had been a fellow-atudent with him, pro- 
bably in Weaaei, dedicated hia work on Uetra 
to Aldfrith, under the name of Acirdua. He 
a a friend and benetictor also of Benedict 
•cop, and waa bimielf very learned in the 
Scripturta, and aucb a lover of booki that OD 
Qe occasion he gave eight hidca of land for a 
spy of the ComngmpW. 

On hia acceaaion, he reatored WiliHd to hit 
burch at Heiham, and a little Uter to York ; 
ut in 693 be quarrelled with him, and reatored 
he hiihopa whom Wilfrid had diaplaced. Some 
ean afler thii he made an iueOectual attempt 
>b« reconciled with him at the council of i:t»wl- 
apath, hut, thii failing, he maintained a hoatiie 
oeitioD towards him aa long u be lived. It i* 
ot improbable that the diviaion, although origi- 

eitateg, wai widened by the Jealooaiu of the two 
•chooli in the Northern Church, th* one of 
which, repreiented by Wilfrid and Acca, maia- 
taioed the Roman u coutraated with th* Iriih 
learning, and the Roman aa opposed to th* 
Kentiflh lupremacy ; whilit the latter, repre- 
iented by Benedict Biicop and Aldfrith, with 
the biihopa Cuthbert, BoU, and Eats, retained 
many Iriita lympslhici, and waa thoroughly at 
one with the comprehensiT* church policy o) 

Of the adininiitration of secular affairs by 
Aldfrith, although Henrv of HnntlngdoD calf* 
him "itrennus in bellis,'' little ii recorded, but 
the period of hii death ia referred to by Bede aa 
Ihe date of the decay of eccleiiastical puHly in 
Nortbumbria. According tu William of Uatmea' 
bury (O. B. i. 52% who only amplifies the stale- 
Dient of Bede ill. E. iv. 2il> his dominioDi were 
much diminished by Ibe succesiea of the PicI:.. 

His lait dayi were troubled by remor>e for 
hi9 behaviour lo Wilfrid, and he Ua >l 

with h 


I (tddiui 

:i>il. ai 

r llaubeuge, agnic 

inl t 

of \\,t lw< 

1, IMS. 

appended to the BoUandisls' ac- 
«"ut. ffit^Act. j-i. BiJI. Jan. ii. 10.^4-10W! 
lLl„llni, AlI. SS. Ben. me. li. 807-815; 
U^a4l»i%t t-acrti:, i. 415.) [C. D.] 

ALDFBITH. kingofN'orlhumbriL He waa 
tki n Df Oiwin; bat u h^tilf.E. ir. 26, 
■'■tj Cmih. e. 24) calla him Notbua, hia mother 
Wi iwbably « coBcnbiae. Ueapent hia wrly life 

Aldfrith died Dec. 14, 705, at Driffield, in 
Yorkshire {Chr. Alt. ad 705). where a iiiunu- 

Tradition aiwrls that he had been wounded in 
battle at Scamridge, and alter taking refuge in 
a cave above tbbenton, Hill called Alfri.!'. hole, 
was taken to DrilReld to die. iU-mdhoai .^ 
I'orMirt, 145.) He married Culhburb, the 
liiter of Ina, king of Wesaei, from whom h* 
separated before bis death. She was the founder 

tailwulf, who, niter a reign of Iwo months, 
was eipelled by Oared, son of Aldfrith. (Bed*, 
//. E., Vita .aUitmH, cap. B, 12, Vila CatUia-ti, 
cap. 34 ; Chron. Sax. ad 68.i, 705.) 

(«) Alfkith or Atfeitii, the lOlh abbot of 



ALDHELM was the son of Keaten or Kenter, 
a member of the royal family of Wessex. William 
of Malmesbary, whose life of Aldhelm is a fair spe- 
cimen of his critical power, rejects the statement 
of Faricins, his earlier biographer, that Keuten 
was a brother of Ina, on the grounds of chro- 
nology. He was bom about the middle of the 
7th century, and educated under Maildulf, an 
Irish scholar, who had settled on the spot after- 
wards called from him Maildulfi Burgus or 
Malmesbury. From Malmesbury Aldhelm went 
to Canterbury, where he studied under Theodore 
and Adrian, and learned, according to his bio- 
graphers, not only Greek, but Hebrew. On his 
return to Wessex, he received the tonsure, and 
spent the following fourteen years under Mail- 
dulf, with possibly an occasional visit to Canter- 
bury. On Maildulfs death, Aldhelm was ap- 
pointed his successor, and the establishment at 
Malmesbury was placed under his charge as 
abbot, by Leutherius, who was bishop in Wessex 
from 670 to 676. The dates of Aldhelm's life, 
which are given by William of Malmesbury 
from doubtful or forged charters, cannot be 
depended upon. 

In this post of abbot, Aldhelm greatly pro- 
moted the 8pi*ead of Christianity in the West of 
England ; founded two monasteries at Frome and 
Bradford, and was the chief adviser of Ina in the 
i-estoration of Glastonbury. He is said to have 
paid a visit to Rome during the pontificate of 
Sergius I. 687-701, whom he cleared from an 
imputation of being father of a nun's child, 
obtaining from the child, nine days old, the denial 
of his paternity. 

For this visit to Rome there is no authority in 
his extant writings. The verses on the church 
of S. Peter and S. Paul, which have been 
thought to imply it, refer to the church of 
Malmesbury ; and the lines of Virgil, quoted by 
William of Malmesbury as applied by Alciiin to 
himself, ** Primus ego in patriam mecum, modo 
vita supersit, Aonio rediens deaacam vertice 
Musas,*' are seen by their place in the context to 
mean no more than that he was the Hrst Eng- 
lishman who studied Latin metres {Opp, ed. 
Giles, p. 327). 

Whilst he was abbot, he wrote, at the request 
of a synod of bishops, a letter to Gerontius, king 
of the Damnonian Britons, on the subject of the 
Paschal cycle, which had the effect of bringing 
that monnrth and his people over to the Roman 
usage. During this time, pi*obabIy, it was that 
he formed the acquaintance of S. Wilfrid, to 
whom one of his lettei's is addressed. 

In the year 705 the great diocese of Wessex 
was divided, and Aldhelm was appointed to the 
Western division of it, with his see at Sherbom, 
in Dorsetshire. He lived four years after his 
consecration, and died on the 25th of May, 709, 
at Dulting, in Somersetshire. 

Aldhelm occupies a very important position in 
the history of English lit«rature. He was the 
first Englishman who cultivated classical learning 
with any success, and the first of whom any 
literary remains are preserved. His extant 
writings by no means justify his claim to the 
character of a great scholar, but they show that 
he possessed considerable knowledge of books and 
great facility in writing very involved and 
elaborate Latin. His works, by both their style 
asd eabject, oonrey an idea of quaint and fantas- 


tic elaboration, which he derived, perliape, hcfm 
his Irish teaching. 

His great merit must have been his exertion 
in the work of education, which made Wessex 
during the first half of the 8th century a rival 
of Korthumbria, filling it with monastic schools, 
such as produced Boniface and his companions in 
the work of enlightening Germany. The success 
of these establishments was due, no doubt, in 
great measure, to bishop Daniel, who sat at Win- 
chester from 705 to 745 ; but Aldhelm*8 character 
as a scholar has won for him the larger share of 

Although Aldhelm had himself been taught 
by an Irishman, his sympathies were clearly 
with the Kentish school, in which he had also 
studied; and in one of his letters (^Opp. ed. 
Giles, p. 94) he expresses himself with some 
jealousy on the popularity of the Irish schools 
compared with those of Canterbury, although 
the latter were favoured by the presence of 
Theodore and Adrian. This jealousy of the 
Irish school, which was felt less strongly in 
the Northumbrian church, is a mark of the 
subsequent character of the West Saxon missions 
in Germany as distinguished fi-om the Northum- 

William of Malmesbury has preserved a saying 
of king Alfred, that Aldhelm wrote a number of 
hymns in his; native language, by which he tried 
to allure the country people to endure longer 
services in church, and to abstain from work 
on holy days. Some of these were still in com- 
mon use in the days of Alfred, but none of the 
Anglo-Saxon poetry now in existence bears the 
name of Aldhelm. The extant works of Aldhelm 
are — 

1. De laudihus VirginitatiSf mentioned by Bede 
as written in imitation of Sedulius in both prose 
and verse. The prose version is addressed to 
Hildelida, abbess of Barking, and was a popular 
work in the middle ages. It was printed as 
early as 1512 at De venter. It contains sixty 
chapters of stories in illustration of the subject. 

2. The metrical treatise, De laudihus ctr- 
ginum^ is a poetical treatment of the same 
stories, addressed ** Ad Maximam Abbatissam,*' in 

3. Epistola ad Acircium, sive Liher de Sep- 
tenario et de MetriSy Aenigmatibus ac pedum 
reguliSj an elaborate work on the Latin metres. 
Acircius is Aldfrith, king of Northumbria, whom 
Aldhelm had known probably in his exile. 
William of Malmesbury mentions a Scottish 
prince, Arcuilus, whom Aldhelm had instructed 
at Malmesbury, and whose name is not impro- 
bably a corruption of Acircius, although Ubsher 
believed him to be a Scot. This work contains a 
quantity of enigmas, which were printed by 
Delrio in 1601. The body of the work was first 
published by Cardinal Mai in the fifth volume of 
the Aut^tores Ciassici. 

4. The letter to Gerontius on the Paschal 
cycle, first printed among the letters of 

5. A few lettei's of singularly little interest, 
printed generally, with those of Boniface, and i 
few others preserved by William of Malmesburj 
in his life of Aldhelm. 

6. Some short poems, chiefly inscriptions fin 
altars and churches. 

The works of Aldhelm, which had appeared ii 


the ooUcciions of Caniaios, Del Rio, Wharton, 
and others, were collected and edited with his 
letters first by Dr. Giles, Oxford, 1844 ; and re- 
printed bf Migne in his Patrologia^ vol. Ix^cxix. 

The lite of Aldhelm was said to have been 
written first br S. Egwin, and after him by S. 
Okmnnd, and Eadmer (Mabillon, Acta SS, (Jrd. 
Ben, SKC. iiu p. 1, page 220). Bat the earliest 
existing biography is that by Faricius, printed in 
the Act. SS, Boll. May ir. pp. 84, &c., and also 
in Dr. Giles's edition of his works. This was 
«uperbeded at an early date by William of 
Malmeftbnry, whose life of Aldhelm, illustrated 
by the records and traditions of his monastery, 
forms the fifth book of his Gesta Poniificwn. 
Mr. Wright's acooant of Aldhelm in the J?to- 
gmpk, Brit, Litt, is full and good. [S.] 

ALDHUK, an abbot in Weasex, who wrote a 
letter to St. Boniface (Cp. 160, ed. WUrdtwein), 
proposing mutual intercession in prayer. Ma- 
billon (Ann. 0. S. B. ii. 10) supposes him to 
hare b«en abbot of Wimbome. [S.] 

ALDULF. (1) Son of Ethelhere, succeeded 
Ethel wald as king of the East Angles in 664. 
His mother, Hereswitha, was sister of St. Hilda, 
ind of the royal family of Northurobria. He is 
mentioned by Bede as a contemporary, and as re- 
membering the temple in which king Redwald 
hsd worshipped Christ, with his other gods, " more 
Sunantanomm.** He was in the 17th vear of his 
reign when the council of Hatfield (680) was 
held, and his name appears in a letter addressed 
br Pope Sergius to the kings of Elngland on 
the election of archbishop Brihtwald in 692. 
His brother, Alfwold, succeeded him, but the 
iite of his death is unknown (Bede, H. E. ii. 15). 

(8) (Ealdwulf), the tenth bishop of Roches- 
ter, consecrated by archbishop Brihtwald in 
726. He was one of the consecrators of arch- 
U»hop Tatwine in 731, and is mentioned as 
bi»hop by Bede in his closing chapter. He at- 
tests a charter of Oshere in 736 (Kemble, C. D. 
L 99). and an act of his own dated in 738 is 
itill extant, requesting coofirmation of a gift 
i^i land made to his church by Eadberht, king of 
Kent. He also had a grant from Ethelbald of the 
t'-U of one ship annually in the ))ort of Lon- 
don, in I'M. His death is placed by Simeon of 
Durham in 739, by Florence of Worcester in 
741 ; bat as it is mentioned in connexion with 
that of archbishop Nothelm in both pl.ices, it 
vrabablr occurred in 739 (Bede, //. E. ; Sim. 
t»un. M.H.B.; Flor. Wig. M.H.B.-, Kemble, 
C /). i). 

(Z) A bishop whoee consecration is recorded 
by Simeon of Durham to have taken place in 
79«v at Corbridge. Wharton, following a mis- 
take nf William of Malroesbury, supposes him to 
kare L«en archbishop of Lichfield ; but Aldulf of 
Lichfield was not bishop until after 800. He 
BaT, however, safely be identified with the 
bisMp of Mayo in Ireland, ** Aldulphus Myiensis 
tociesiae episoopus," who attended the Legatine 
cwadl of the North in 787 (Sim. Dun. M. //. B. 
666; Whartoo, Ang. 8acr. L 430; Spelman, 
Come. L 301). 

«) C£AD«7Lr.] [a] 

ALDWIN. (1) AldeTini, brother of Ethel- 
via, bniicn of Lindscy, and of abbess Ethelhild. 
Ht VM abm of Pkrtnej, in Lincolnshire, about 



the beginning of the 8th century (Bede, £f. E. 
iii. 11). 

(2) Ealdwine, also called Worr; was bishop 
of Lichfield at the time at which Bede finished 
his history. His name is found in charters as 
early as 727, so that he probably succeeded in 
721 bishop Hedda, who died in that year {Ang. 
Sacr, i. 428) ; but if the act of the Council of 
Clovesho in 716 is genuine (Haddan and Stubbs, 
iii. 300), he must have been a bishop five years 
earlier. He assisted at the consecration of 
archbishop Tatwine in 731, and signs chartfi^rs 
of Ethellwld, king of Mercia, as late as 736. 
His death is placed by Simeon of Durham in 
737. The diocese which he had held was 
divided at his death (Bede, H. E. v. 23 ; Sim. 
Dun. M. H. B. 659; Anglia Sacra, i. 428; 
Kemble, Cod. Dipl. i.). [S.] 

ALETHEIA (Iren. 5 ff., 15, 52 f. ; Epiph. 
Haer. 165-170) [Valentinus] : (Iren. 57)[ProL- 
EMAEUS]: (Iren. 69 f., 73 t., 78) [Marcus]: 
(Iren. 108) [Ophites.] [H.] 

ALEXANDER (St.), archbUhop of Alex- 
andria, appears to have come to that see in 
313, after the short episcopate of Achillas. He 
was an elderly man, of a kindly and attractive 
disposition ; " gentle and quiet, as Rufinus says 
(i. 1), but also capable of acting with vigour 
and persistency. Accusations were laid against 
him by the malcontent Meletian faction, ** before 
the emperor " Constantine (Athanas. Apol. c, 
Ar, 11 : ad Ep. Aeg. 23), but apparently without 
result. He was involved in a controversy with 


one Crescentius as to the proper time fur keeping 
Easter (Epiphan. Hacr. 70. 9). But in 31 9 he was 
called upon to confront a far more formidable 
adversary. Arius, the parish priest, n.s he may 
be described, of the church of Baucalis, the oldest 
and the most important of the churches of Alex- 
andria, situated " in the head of the nierciDtile 
part of the city ** (Xeale, Hist. Alex. i. il<»), was 
a man whose personal abilities enhanced tiie in- 
fluence which he might gain from his oiKcial 
position; he had been thought of, to say the 
least, for the episcopal dignity at the last vacancy 
of the " Evangelical Throne," and may have con- 
sequently entertained unfriendly feelings tow.irds 
its actual occupant. But it would be unreason- 
able to ascribe the opinions associated with his 
name to any motive of private resentment. It 
would seem rather that the habits of his mind, 
and a ** tem})erament devoid of reverence ** 
(Bright, Hist. Ch.j p. 11), prepared him to adopt 
and carry out to their consequences, with a j>ecu- 
liar boldness of logic, such views as he now began 
to disseminate in Alexandrian society; that the 
Son of God could not be co-eternal with His 
Father ; that He must therefore have come into 
existence at a very remote period, by the creative 
fiat of the Father, so that it might be truly said 
of Him that "once He was not;" that, there- 
fore, He must be regarded as external to the 
Divine essence, and only a creature, although of 
all creatures the most ancient and august. 
[Arius.] The bishop, after hearing of these 
statements as current in Alexandria, trie«i at 
first to check the evil by remonstrance .it an 
interview, but with no real success. Arius 
resumed the dissemination of his opinions, and 
expressed them with greater boldness than be- 
Ibrt. The agitation increasing, Alexander sum- 



moDed A conference of his clergy ; free discossion 
of the subject was allowed ; and Sozomen's state- 
ment, that Alexander seemed to waver between 
the Arian and anti-Arian positions, is probably 
an exaggeration of the fact that he was anxious 
to secure for Arius and his adherents a fair and 
patient hearing. Ultimately, however, he spoke 
out, and asserted in strong terms the ooequality 
of the Son; whereupon Arius took occasion to 
criticize his language* as savouring of that Sabel« 
lian error [SikBELUUS] which had *' confounded 
the Persons," and had been so repugnant to the 
mind of the church of Egypt. The conference, 
after another sitting, broke up. It was, perhaps, 
on one of these occasions that Arius presented (if 
St. Basil was rightly informed, adv. JEunom. i. 4) 
a doctrinal statement, couched in such simple 
language as might have sufficed before the dis- 
cussion of the question, but was, under existing 
circumstances, disingenuously reticent. The 
movement increased, and Alexander himself was 
charged by impatient zealots with irresolution 
and excessive forbearance, or even with some in- 
clination towards the new errors. It was then, 
apparently, that Colluthus, one of the city pres- 
byters, went so far as to separate from his 
bishop's communion, and, on the plea of the 
necessities of the crisis, to *' ordain " some of his 
followers as clergy. (See Valesius on Theod., i. 
4, and Neale, i. 116. This ordination, as per- 
formed by a mere presbyter, was soon afterwards 
pronounced by the Egyptian episcopate to be 
null.) Alexander's next step was to write to 
Arius and his supporters, including two bishops, 
tive priests, and six deacons, exhorting them to 
renounce their ** impiety " ; and the majority of 
the clergy of Alexandria and the Marcotis, at his 
request, subscribed his letter. The exhortation 
was in vain; and the archbishop felt himself 
obliged to bring the case formally before the 
. synod of his suffragans, who were in number 
' nearly a Iiundred. The Arians were summoned 
to appear : they stated their opinions ; the Son, 
they held, was not eternal, but was created by 
the impersonal **Woixl," or Wisdom of the 
Father ; foreign, therefore, to the Fathei''s 
essence, imperfectly cognizant of Him, and, in 
fact, called into existence to be His instrument 
in the ci*eation of man. ** And can He then," 
asked one of the bishops, *^ change from good to 
evil, as Satan did?" They did not shrink from 
answering, '* Since He is a creature, such a change 
is not impossible ";** and the council instantly 
pronounced them to be ** anathema." Such was 
the excommunication of Arius, apparently in 
320. It was as far as possible from arresting 
the great movement of rationalistic thought (for 
this, in truth, was the ch<iracter of Arianism) 
which had now so determinedly set in. The 

• It is not easy to harmonize the acconnta given by 
Socrates, i. 5, and Sozomen, L 15 ; but, on the whole, the 
latter appears more full and satisfactory, and may be con- 
sidered as narrating the fkcta from an earlier starting point 
than the one taken by the former. It is not likely that 
Arius would have suddenly attacked the bishop's discourse 
without having previously secured himself a following, 
nor that Alexander would have addressed his clergy on 
this mysterious sul^ject without being constrained to do so 
by the spread of heterodox speculations. 

^ They aftorwards drew a distinction: "He was by 
nature capaUe of such change, but in fact He is incapable 


new opinions became extraordinarily popuUr; 
Alexandrian society was flooded with colloquial 
irreverence. But Arius ere long found that he 
could not maintain his position in the city when 
under the ban of the archbishop; it may be that 
Alexander had power actually to banish him ; and 
he repaired to Palestine, where, as he expected, 
he found that his representations of the case 
made a favourable impression on several bishops, 
including Eusebius of Caesarea. Some wrote in 
his favour to Alexander, who, on his part, was 
most indefatigable in writing to varioi|s bishops 
in order to prevent them from being deceived by 
Arius; Epiphanius tells us that 'seventy such 
letters were preserved in his time {ffaer. 69, 4). 
Of these, some were sufficiently effectual in 
Palestine to constrain Arius to seek an abode at 
Nicomedia. He had secured the support of the 
bishop of that city, the able but unprincipled 
Eusebius (Theodoret, i. 5 ; Ath. de Syn. 17) ; and 
he now wrote (Ath. de Syn, 16) in the name of 
'Hhe presbyters and deacons" who had been 
excommunicated, to Alexander, giving a state- 
ment o( their views, and professing that they 
had been learned from Alexander himself; the 
fact being, probably, as Mohler thinks, th&t 
Alexander had formerly used vague language in 
an anti-Sabellian direction. He was now repeat- 
edly urged by Eusebius to readmit Arius to 
communion ; and the other bishops of Bithynia, 
in synod (Soz. i. 15X authorized their chief to 
send circular letters in his favour to various 
prelates. A Cilician bishop, Athanasius of Ana- 
zarbus, wrote to Alexander, openly declaring 
that Christ was " one of the hundred sheep '* ; 
George, an Alexandrian presbyter, then staying 
at Antioch, had the boldness to write to his 
bishop to the effect that the Son once ^was 
not," just as Isaiah " was not " before he was 
born to Amoz (Ath. de Syn. 17), for which he 
was deposed by Alexander from the priesthood. 
Arius now returned into Palestine, and three 
bishops of that country, one of whom was 
Eusebius of Caesarea, permitted him to hold 
religious assemblies within their dioceses. This 
permission naturally gave great offence to Alex- 
ander. He had hitherto written only to indi- 
vidual bishops, as hoping that the controversy 
might be prevented from becoming an affair of 
the whole Church. But he now ^ drew up (per- 
haps by the help of his secretary and ^arch- 
deacon," Athanasius) his famous Encyclic to all 
his fellow-ministers, i.e., to the whole Christian 
Episcopate, giving an account of the opinions for 
which the Egyptian synod had excommunicated 
the original Arians, adducing Scriptural texts in 
refutation, and warning his brethren against the 
intrigues of Eusebius (Soc. i. 6). This letter, which 
he caused his clergy to sign, probably preceded the 
" Tome " or confession of faith which he referred 
to, as having been signed by some bishops, when 
he wrote to Alexander bishop of Byzantium the 
long and elaborate letter presei'ved by Theodoret, 
L 4 ; in which, while using some language which 
in strictness must be called inaccurate, he gives 
an exposition of texts which became watchwords 
of the orthodox in the struggle (a.d. 323). 
Another correspondent now appears on the 

e A comparatively late date for this entTdic appean 
necessary, on account of its allusions to Eusebius. Set 
Nealo, HUt. Alex. i. 127. Some identify the encyclic wlH 
the Tome. 


EoMbins of Nicomedia, who had a strong 
iaflaeac* orer the Emperor Coostantioe, per- 
ssaded him to write, or perhaps to adopt aod 
ttfA, a letter to Alexander and Anus, in which 
the coBtroTersT was treated as a l<^omachy, and 
the dispntanta were blamed for disturbing the 
peace of the Christian community (of which the 
emperor, although nnbaptized, regarded himself 
as a member), by wrangling about minute 
points of BO real and rital importance (Euseb. 
Vd^ dm. it 64 sq.; Soc. L 7). The imperial 
epistle was entrusted to a prelate of very high 
positioa, Uoftius of Cordora, whose sted fastness 
had been prored under Pagan persecution, but 
was destined long afterwards to girt way under 
a different kind of pressure. He can have had 
hot little sympathy with the tone assumed by 
the emperor; but lie was charged not only to 
present the letter to Alexander, but also, as it 
seems, to inquire into the other troubles of the 
Egyptian church, caused by the Meletian schism 
and the new party of Colluthus, and to promote 
an agreement as to the Paschal controversy. The 
council held at Alexandria on his arrival decided 
soe point very unequivocally; the ordinations 
performed by Colluthus, he being only a pres- 
byter, were pronounced to be absolutely null. 
(Ath. ApoL 76.) And Hosius apparently took 
bsck with him from Egypt such stronger eri- 
deace of the magnitude of the dogmatic question 
St tssae, and of the impossibility of establishing 
peace OB the basis of indifferentism, that Con- 
itantinc was induced to siunmon a general as- 
mnbly of bishops to meet at Nicaea, in June 
125. The procMdings of the First (Ecumenical 
Cofuncil need Bot here be narrated. [Nicaba, 
CorsrciL or.] It is enough to say that the Arians 
vere condemned, and the Nicene Creed, in its 
•rifiaal form, was drawn up. The Paschal 
question was dealt with by ruling that the Qoar- 
todeciman practice should be everywhere aban- 
duoed, and that the Alexandrian bishop should 
crenr year (by aid uf Egyptian science) ascertain 
tbe Sunday on which Easter would rightly fall, 
tod take steps for giving the necessary infurma- 
tioa to the whole Church (Leo, hp. 121). 

Hie Meletian schismatics were leniently dealt 
vith: Meletius himself was allowed to retain 
the nominal dignity of a bishop; the bishops 
vhom he had consecrated were to take rank 
sfter the regular prelates* and were even made 
cspable of succeeding to vacant sees. The synodal 
Utter which announced these resolutions to the 
Lcyptian Church (Soc u 9X spoke of Alexander 
m the most respectful and cordial language. 
<)u htt return to Alexandria, Meletius, as he was 
•rdered to do, uiade out and presented a cata- 
Infue of hb adherents (Athas. Apoi. c. Ari. 71). 
Tlvt ttoTf told by Epiphanius, of severities used 
by Alexander towards the Meletians, and of a 
esBsequent petition addressed by them to Con- 
stant ine, appears to be one of several misstate- 
awBts which he adopted from some Meletian 
••tirccs. Athanasius tells us expressly that 
AWxaader died within fire months after the ro- 
ctption of the Meletians into church communion 
IS the Council of Nicaea (Apol. c. Ari. 59), and 
tbiv if strictly reckoned from the close of the 
Cf«artl, would place his death in January 326. 
It cannot be dated later than April 18 in that 
jut. For the other circumstances connected 
«itk it, see Atuaxasius. 




Athanasius mentions a circumstance of Alex- 
ander's local administration which furnished a 
precedent, on one occasion, for himself. Alex- 
ander was building the church of St. Theonas at 
Alexandria, which was to be on a larger scale 
than any of the existing churches ; and he held 
congregations in it, for convenience sake, before 
it was completed. {Ap. ad Const, 15.) He is 
also said by tradition to have never read the 
Gospels in a sitting posture, and to have never 
eaten on fast days while the sun was in the sky. 
(Boiland. Act SS., Feb. 26.) Two short frag- 
ments of a letter addressed by him to a bishop 
named Aeglon, against the Arians, are quoted in 
the works of Maximus the Confessor (in the 
Monothelite controversy), vol. ii. p. 152. 

But a statement made renpecting Alexander 
by Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, a.d. 933, 
in his ^ Contexture of Gems," or annals of the 
Alexandrian Church, deserves consideration. St. 
Mark, he affirms, appointed twelve presbyters 
to continue with the patriarch, and to fill up 
the vacant see by choosing one of their own 
body, on whose head the remaining eleven were 
to lay their hands, bless him, and appoint (or 
make) him patriarch ; which custom lasted until 
the days of Alexander, who forbade any such 
appointment by presbyters for the future, and 
ordered that on the death of a patriarch the 
bishops should meet, and make a new one, who 
was not necessarily to be a member of the Alex- 
andrian presbytery; **and so the old institution 
came to an end " (Eutychius, Annat. ed. Pocock, 
i. 331). On this we may observe (1) Eutychius 
was writing more than 600 years after the time 
referred to, and was capable of making the 
strangest blunders about the history of his own 
church.' (2) The statement looks very like an 
altered and exaggerated form of one made by 
Jerome in his 146th letter, to Evagrius (or 
Evangelus), to the etl'ect that at Alexandria, from 
St. Mark to Heradas (bishop of Alexandria in 
231) and his successor IHonysius, the presbyters 
used always to nominate as bishop one chosen 
out of themselves, and placed (by them) in a 
higher rank, jubt as an army might make an 
imperator, or deacons choose an archdeacon. 
Now (a) Jerome here dates the change of custom 
which he mentions, more than 60 years earlier 
than the date given by Eutychius. (jS) He says 
nothing about ordination or consecration. One 
view of his meaning is, that there was actually 
no such rite in use at the appointment of Alex- 
andrian bishops during that period ; Morinus 
{de Sacr. Ordin, iii. p. 30) considers his words 
to imply this. Yet one, at least, of his two 
illustrations would suggest the subsequent action 
of a higher authority, to sanction the pres- 
bvters' act of choice. " If the deacons,** says 
Bingham (b. ii. c 21, § 2), *' had any hand in 

* Bishop Pearson, Mnd. /gnat. 1. 294 (ed. Churton). 
quotes l-Aitychius ss csllinfc Origen a bishop in Justinian's 
time, and as building up a strange mis^utement un s oun- 
ftision between Achillas the patriarch and Achilla.** the 
Arian. Kutychius. indeed. h.-ts several sbsurd assertions 
about the two patriarchs, Alexander and Athanasius. No 
wonder that his anthority has been called futile, or that 
be has been dncribed as " remarkable Tor oothinR so much 
as his credulity and the iiKoniilstency of his narratives, 
not only with those of more authentic historians, but often 
with themNelvea." Skinner. iVias. TnUk and OnUr, p. 2M. 
See also Cavs^ £%aL LiL U. tT. 




making the arohdMcon, it must be nndentood 
to be under the direction of the bishop." And 
if he supposed a mere election to hare raffioed 
for conferring the episcopate, he obTionsly dif- 
fered from Eutychins,* and, what is much more, 
it would be easier to think him in error than to 
believe so great an anomaly to have been the 
rule in so eminent a church.' If he did not sup- 
pose that consecration was dispensed with, be 
must hare supposed it to hare been performed 
by bishops ; as he himself asks in his next sen- 
tence, *'Quid enim fadt, exoeptd ordmatkme^ 
episcopns, quod presbjrter non fiicit?" and a 
little further, **Omnee (episcopi) apostolorum 
successores sunt ; " and the letter concludes with 
a parallelism between the three orders of high 
priest, priest, and Levite, and those of bishop, 
presb^rter, and deacon. Tlie probability is, there- 
fore, that he was thinking simply of an old mode 
of choosing the Alexandrian prelates. (3) Nor 
is it certain, indeed, that £utychius meant* to 
ascribe the actual consecration to the twelve 
presbyters. His words hare been understood of 
acts of voting, designation, or approbation (Ec- 
chellensis, Eutych, VindiCf p. 40, 19X or of the 
presbyters' action in procuring the consecratiMi 
of the bishop-elect (Renaudot, Lit. Orient.^ i. 
881). If, indeed, he really thought that the 
presbyter had ordained the bishop, it is not too 
much to say that the existence of so great an 
anomaly in such a place, and, as Selden under- 
stands Eutychius, up to the time of the Nicene 
Council, is more than can be believed on the 
warrant of such a writer,! and would hardly 
have found credit in modern times unless it had 
served a particular controversial object. It is 
especially to be observed that the proceedings 
of the Alexandrian Council of 324 could not have 
taken place as they did, if an institution so 
ancient and so venerable as this peculiar usage, 
by the hypothesis, must have been in the Alex- 
andrian Church, had sanctioned the ordination, by 
presbyteral hands, not simply of presbyters, but 
of prelates, of the actual patriarch himself. 
Nor can one fail to see that if that usage had 
been changed by Alexander himself (as Euty- 
chius' words literally import, although Selden 

• The attempts of Selden to hsmxmixe the chronolo- 
gical statement of Jerome with that of Eutychius, and 
** exoepti oidinatlone'* with his own theory, are far fh>m 

t Observe how Ensebins records the early Alexandrian 
BuoceBsiooB in his ordinary styles as if he knew of nothing 
pecaliar ahoat thooo. 

t Three statements have been quoted to support it : — 
(a) Hilary the Deacon, on Eph. iv. 11, " Apod Aegyptum 
presbyteri oofMi'i^fiafi/, si praeaens non sit episcopus." But 
Eccbellensis cliaUengea Selden to show a case in which 
"coDsignare" is used for "to ordain." The sense is, "to 
confirm " (Hooker, vii 6. 4). (fi) The author of some 
'Quaestiones' on 0. and N. T. (appended to torn. iii. of 
St. Angostine) qu. 101 : " In Alexandria et per totun 
Aegyptum, si desit eplsoopus, eonseerat (aL consignai) 
presbyter.** This appears to retipr to the hallowing of the 
chrism used for conflrmatlou. And both these statements, 
if they did refer to ordination, would simply contradict 
Etttychius, as Selden and others understand him ; for they 
would deny the abolition of the ordaining powers of pres- 
byters in the time of Alexander, (y) Gassian says (^f'oOat. 
Iv. 1) that a certain [laniel was "a beato ftiphnutio ad 
diaoonii praelatos offlcinm, and IViphnntias " eum pren- 
byterii honore provexit ;" but this may well mean, pro- 
cured his ordination. See Bingham, b. IL c 3. s. 7. 


takes them as referring to the 4th Nicene caooBi 
passed, as he supposes, under Alexander's in- 
fluenceX ^^^ enemies of Athaneaius would have 
made the novel mode of his appointment an 
element in their charges against him, whereas 
the Athanasian history contains no trace of such a 
complaint, although an anecdote in the * Sayings 
of the Fathers' (Coteler, i/oiittm. L 611) makes 
certain heretics say that he had been ordained by 
presbyters. (4) Sevems, the biographer of the 
Alexandrian patriarcha, who wrote some 30 
years after Euty chins, and is quoted by Le Quien 
and Sollerius {Act. S3. Junii, vol. v. p. 8, 9eqq.\ 
Eccbellensis, and Renaudot, asserts that (a) in 
some ante-Kicene elections of patriarchs, others 
beside the presbyters took part; (6) that the 
presbyters had electoral rights long after the 
time of Alexander ; (c) that in two ante-Nicene 
cases (cf. Neale, Ifitt. Alex. i. 14, 16) the person 
elected was not one of the presbytery. (5) 
George Hormaidius, and the Mahometan writer 
Makrizi, both of whom wrote after Eutychius, 
are cited as understanding Eutychius' words not 
to imply an ordination by the presbjrtery. If, 
then, (6) it be asked how much of peculiar 
privilege was probably vested in the Alexandrian 
presbyters, we may suppose that by the ancient 
rule (which was not without exceptions) they 
alone were eligible to the bishopric of their own 
city,^ and that in such elections the presbytery 
took, as was natural, at least the prominent 
part. The supposition favoured by Le Quien, and 
to some extent by Neale (//iM. AUx. i. 1 1), that 
this early Alexandrian pr^bytery was an epis- 
copal college, may be pronounced tn be quite 
improbable. The statement of Eutydiius that 
before the time of Demetrius (A.D. 189) the 
bishops of Alexandria were the only bishops in 
Egypt, is understood by Eccbellensis and Renaudot 
to refer to Egypt proper, or the Delta ; but it 
may well be that the diocesan system was ot 
very gradual growth in the country. [W. B,] 

ALEXANDER, bishop of Antioch, suc- 
ceeded Porphyriu8,*A.D. 413 (Clinton Fast. Rom.\ 
as the 3dth bishop of the see. Before he was raised 
to the episcopate he had lived an ascetic life in a 
monastery. Theodoret praises him {H. E. v. 35) 
for the holiness and austerity of his life, his con- 
tempt of riches, love of wisdom, and powerftd 
eloquence. The influence of his mild words and 
winning character were effectual to heal the schism 
between the remaining partisans of the unjustly 
calumniated and banished Eustathius and the 
main body of the Church, which had lasted 85 
years. He led the way to another act of tardy 
justice by restoring the name of Chrysostom to 
the ecclesiastical registers. With this object he 
visited Constantinople, and excited the people tc 
demand the restitution of their archbishop't 
name of the intruder Atticus (Theodor. L c 
Kiceph. H. E. xiv. 26, 27). He was sucoeedec 
by Theodotus a.d. 421. [E. V.] 

ALEXANDER, bishop of Apamea, in Syri) 
Secuuda, and metropolitan. He accompanied hi 
namesake and brother metropolitan, Alexander c 
Hiera polls, to the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431 
and was associated with him in all the transac 

k Hooker, vii. 6, 6. The rule of some chapters, to ele 
the hisbop finom their own body, has been quoted I 


IprtcgiBi of Ctuldi 

a tlm* d*ui1«d in that artid*. 
i/Ctuld*, OH of tb* d^t dcpnliei 
MM br tb« OnoUl putf to ibt Emperor 
TfcwIiMni wu eommlHlaud to act h bii 
pnn (Balni. 67T> Tb* uhh prelate wu after- 
rmiia dcpatad to piHbnii the dutia of th« ■»• 
W Afin— , pariMpi dnrimg Alaiasder'i iiupco- 
wn. H* vaapnbaUrlhe AUiandirdcapatched 
hr Ik* Oricmtai Uihop to AleUBiIria with ODf 
•f ib« naof vain attempt* to OTtrconie the 
•tatlaacT at Crril (A. 908> Towardi Eaater, 
*M, be wnte to Aliiuider of Hienpoib aipTCO- 
iBf hia great dadi* Ibr a loaf lime to rliit him, 
■ad hi* ngnt at hariaf been faisdend by illnoi 
■ad olfiiial dntla. Hii object ii dot aingaed, bnt 
It b Ukalj- that it waa to todaaTcwr to iadnca 
AleuBilar to admit Joha and Cjnl to comma- 
«« (A (132, p. 834). [LV.] 

ALEXANDEK, biihop of Buiuhopoi-u, in 
BilbyBia. HtwaaorawDatorialnmilrofCjnDe, 
*lw in (arlj jonth embnced the mDnutic life, 
aad waa deemed worthf of receiviog holjr orden. 
baiiaew hroogbt bim to Coututiiiople, when 

■ highlT^him that before 403 he ordained 
him hiahop of tb* cit; of BaailiDopolii, erected 
ia Kthjnia bjr Julian the Apoetate, aad named 
•fur bia moliwr. He warmly tapoiued the 
euac of Chrj aoatom, asd iband io hii fall. He 
ntind to bii oatlT* conntir, and lettled at 
where Spuaiiu fontid htm, wbea 

to ba iU-treated b; the piieiti of the diitHct, 
•ha nluad him commnuoa or tTen oidinarf 
litcreDaraa. Eras STiwiJiu waa afraid to recaiv* 
him Into bb dinrch, or appear with him in 

Kblic, tboogh in priTate he ihowed bim all 
■therlj faapect. Sjrneflloa wrote to Tbeophl- 
loa. aahiag how ba waa to tnat him, but ha 
ncBTed no replr. On the pabliution of the 
•■aaaly aflar Cbrjioilom'i death, Al^iaoder 
nfoiad to arall bimKlf of it, or leave Ptobimaii, 
4eemiBt tb* peace a faltc one. (Synaioi, Epiil. 
l«i, UTiL) [L v.] 

ALEXANDER, (St.), pretided orer the •** of 
BTiami.-a, h the dty wai then called (Theod. 
Hitt. L 1») abont 33 yean, a itaraijr period 

lioB li Tviondj dated from 313 to 317 a.D. He 
>■ already 73 yain old at the time (Soc ffal. 
B. ■; Box. Hut. iii. 3). When CaniUDtiiit after 
lb« delaat of Sidnioi appointed a conference at 
Brtantium between the pattin philoeophen and 
llie biahop, Alexander ii mid to hi re lilenced 
Ihor (pokeaaan by merely theae wonlt : "In 
the name of Jmat Cbriit I annmand thee to 
~ (Sot. i. 18). The antcdoU i> probnbly 
rwlic aa Indicating that Aleiandtr wu 
BHn amiaast for (oodnam than for le*mini(. 
He li hifhlT praiied by Gregory of Nnilanium 
(Or. »), and by Epiphaaiui (Ade. Hm.. liii. 
lu). TtiMidorel also calli him an "Apoatolic" 
Uhap OliM. i. 3. ef. Fkil. Ii). 

I> tb* cenmencement of thi Arian trouble. 
•ha CO aparatien of Altumder wai tpeciallT re- 
^••tad by hia namnake of Aleiandria (TteoJ, 


■id* (Soc li. 8). CoutanUne, Indneed by the 
Eniebiani (Ath. Ep. ad Strap. Rnff. Hitt. I.) and 
deceired by the eqniToeatloa* of Ariua (Soc L 
37), commanded that Ariai abonU be racelred ta 
communion. But AUiander, thoagh tbreatenal 
by theEoaeblanawltbdepotltloaand banithment, 
penUtad In bii determination not to admit the 
archharetie to oommnnlaa, and *bnt bimaaif 
up In the obarcb of Irene for praygr in thla 
eitremity. 71lg radden death of Arlna on tb* 
following morning, Snnday, ae be waa proceeding 
in tiinmpb to the cathedral, wu regarded by 
the orthodoi a* an tiuwer to theae prayen (Soe. 
1.37.38; Sai.ii.2S; Ktk. Ep. ad sirt^.). Alei- 
andar did not long ■DrriT* bim (Soc li. fl ; Theod. 
i. IS). On bb deatbbad he ii aaid to hare d«lg- 
nated Paolu u hi* ancc*«aor, and to ha** 
warned hia clergy againat the ipecioiuBen of 
Maonloniiu (Soc. H. 6). According to Soiomea 
he commended tho piety of Panlna and the taet 
of Hacedonina (iii. 3). Alexander Ii oommemo- 
ratrd by the Greek Church on Ang. 30th, and 
on the 28th by the Latin. p. 6. S.] 


AHDEa or BtsAirnDM.] 

ALEXANDER, biibop of Hieeapolu En- 

a* the nucompramiilDg opponent of Cyril of Alex- 
andria, and th* reaolnte advocate of Neitoriui in 
the coDtroTeniea that followed the Council of 
E]di*nu, a-D. 431. Hit dignity u metropolitan 
gaT* him a leading place in the apposition of 
which John of Antiorh wu tb* bead, and hia 

racter. Holy In life, iweet in intercoune, grara 
in bearing, decided in action, finn in hii adha- 
ranee to what he felt to be tb* caiue of truth 
and juitice, reaolute in carrying out the right 
at any coat of penonal rank, oomfort, or ufetj, 

inipire a higher admiration and a deeper regret 
than AleiatKler of Hienpolii. 

Al<iand«r may bare commenced hit (plampat* 
aa early u «.□. 404, when hit uncomproDiiting 
leal for tb* orthodox faith caowd him to eraM 
the name of one Jalian, a man fnmoai for tb* 
•Bnctity of bit lifb, bat accuied of Apollloari- 

diptychi of one of bli chnrcha (Balui. Sov. 
CM. Cone. p. 8'i7). 

Aloiaoder arrlTed at Epheina In company with 
hit brother melropolitaD, Alexander of Apamea, 

onorabout June '^0,431. A miKonoeptlon - 

■1 Cyril 


t openmg o 
1, Jone il. 

the Aleiandert discovereJ Cyril'* 
1, they Died all their effort! tn prerent 
of the conacU before John'n nrriral, 
lb the other biabopi of 

monad, in the rondemnnllonof Neitoriui. When 
the eagerlv-e I peeled John at laal orrired, Jane 
37, Aleiander joined him In the counter-council 
h*ld by him and the prelatei of bit perty in bli 



inn, and ugned th« acts oancelliog the proceedings 
of the former conncil, deposing Cyril and 
Memnon bishop of Ephesoa, and declaring Cyril's 
anathemas bei-etical. As a necessary oonse- 

Jnence he was included in the sentence against 
ohn, and cut off from communion with Cyril 
and his party (Labbe, iiL 764; Bcduz. 507). 
Correspondence passed between him and the 
venerated Acacius, the aged bishop of Beroea, in 
which Alexander informed him of all that had 
occurred at Ephesus, and received his advice 
(Baluz. 714, 763). When, in the August of the 
same year, deputies were despatched by both 
parties to lay the disputed points before the 
Emperor, he deputed Theodoret his attached 
friend, who had probably been ordained by him, 
to represent him at Constantinople, and was the 
first to sign the absolute power given to him and 
the other seven deputies. He added the charac- 
teristic condition, **that the acts of John's 
council should be ratified, and those of their 
adversaries, and Cyril's anathemas rejected " 
(Labbe, iii. 725). He then returned to his see, 
where he received Theodoret's report of the bad 
success of their mission (ib. 732, 733). An- 
xious for more definite information he wrote to 
one Parthcnius, an abbot at Constantinople, who 
sent him a lamentable account of the sufferings 
of those who still adhered to " the martyr Nes- 
torius," and the heresy openly preached (Baluz. 
B53, 866). Alexander flew to meet the deputies 
on their return from Chalcedon and joined the 
council immediately held by John at Tarsus, 
which pronounced a fresh sentence of deposition 
on Cyril and the bishops who had acted as his 
deputies at Chalcedon (Baluz. 840, 843, 874); 
and that at Autioch in the middle of December, 
ratifying the former acts and declaring their 
adherence to the Nicene faith. He also signed 
the letter to Theodosius, entreating him to enforce 
their condemnation of Cyril's anathemas (Socr. 
vii. 34; Baluz. 906). Theodosius deputed the 
tribune Aristolaus to visit Antioch and endeavour 
to heal the schism. A meeting was held at An- 
tioch early in 432, attended by Alexander, in 
which six alternative articles were drawn up, one 
of which it was hoped Cyril would accept, and 
ao afford a basis of reconciliation (Baluz. 764). 
One, approved by Aristolaus, is preserved. 
This declares a resolution to be content with the 
Kicene Creed and to reject ail the documents 
that had caused the controversy. The decision 
of the council was conveyed to Acacius by 
Alexander. Another council was summoned at 
Beroea. Four more articles were added to the 
six, and the whole were despatched to Cyril. 
Cyril was well content to express his adherence 
to the Nicene Creed, but felt it unreasonable 
that he should be required to abandon all he had 
written on the Nestorian controversy (Labbe, 
iii. 114, 1151, 1157; iv. 666; Baluz. 786). 
Cyril's reply was accepted by Acacius and John 
of Antioch, and other bishops now sincerely 
anxious for pence, but not by Alexander or 
Theodoret (Baluz. 757, 782). The former re- 
newed his charge of ApollinaririDism and refused 
to sign the deposition of Nestorins (Baluz. 7C2-3). 
This defection of Acacius and John of Antioch 
was received with indignant sorrow by Alexander. 
It was the first breach in the hitherto compact 
opposition, which loosened the whole mass, and 
prepared for its gradual dissolution, leaving 


Alexander in the almost solitary championship 
of what he felt to be the orthodox faith. He 
poured forth his feelings in a vehement letter to 
Andrew of Samosata. He forwarded him copies 
of all the documents he had received, and his 
answer to Acacius' letter ; he bitterly complained 
of Acacius' fickleness, and protested that on the 
receipt of his letter he was ready to fly to the 
desert, and that he would rather resign his 
bishopric and cut off his right hand than 
recognise Cyril as a Catholic until he had re- 
canted his errors (ib. 764-5). The month of 
April, 433, saw the reconciliation of John and 
the majority of the Oriental bishops with Cyril 
fully esUblished (Labbe, iv. 659; Cyril Al. 
Epist. 31, 42, 44). Alexander was informed ot 
this in a private letter from John, beseeching 
him no longer to hinder the peace of the Church. 
Alexander's indignation now knew no bounds. 
He wrote in furious terms to Andrew and Theo- 
doret, denouncing John as ** no true bishop," and 
cutting himself off from communion with him 
(Baluz. 799, 800). The efforts of Theodoret and 
Andrew to soften his determination were' fruit- 
less. He put aside their letters — those of Theo- 
doret are models of Christian wisdom, mild, 
courteous, and reverential — with a fixed deter- 
mination to listen to nothing that could alter 
his resolution. His language became more and 
more extravagant, " they might do as they 
pleased ; betray the faitn if they so minded ; 
hold communion with the Egyptian;" he would 
never be polluted by "the abomination of 
Egypt ; ** " exile, violent death, the beasts, the 
fire, the precipice, were to be chosen before com- 
munion with a heretic " (i6. 768, 775, 799, 800, 
809-10). Theodoret in vain besought the reso- 
lute old man to attend the council he summoned 
at Zeugma, a.d. 433, to deliberate on terms of 
peace. His personal entreaties, his assurance 
that all would recognize him as a father and 
master, and that no opposition should be offered 
to his wishes, were fruitless. The terms he 
named were impracticable. The council was 
held without him, and though it adhered to the 
refusal to condemn Nostorius, because it recog- 
nized the orthodoxy of Cyril, his exasperation 
was only increased. He rejected all efforts at 
accommodation, turned a deaf ear to the firm, 
manly letters of Andrew of Samosata, and cnt 
him off from his communion (i6. 804, 810, 816). 
Strengthening himself in his resolution to die 
rather than betray the faith, he at last refused 
to hold intercourse with, or read letters from, 
any who regarded Cyril more leniently than 
himself. He thanked Theodoret for his well 
meant endeavours. (If we accept the letter, 
Bnluz. 868, as genuine, Theodoret even called in 
the mediation of Nestorius to effect his object.) 
** The four journeys he had taken on behalf of 
his miserable soul proved that he had the heart 
of the good shepherd. But it was labour thrown 
away. If he came again he could not see hinu 
He had made a vow to avoid the sight, hearing, 
or even the remembrance of all who in their 
hearts turned back again to Egypt " {ib. 865)^ 
The condemnation of Cyril and idl who recog- 
nized his orthodoxy, by the council held al 
Anazarbus by the bishop Maximin, chiefly by 
Alexander's influence, was but an unsatisfactory 
compensation for the defection of John of An* 
tioch. and the powerful band of bishops wh« 


IbUowttd his lead, and the sanction received 
from Rome of all the proceedings of the Council 
•f EphesnA. John's intrusion upon his privileges 
Vklcned the alienation. Alexander's contumacy 
LmI been regarded as depriving him of his 
fonctioos as metropolitan. John, as patriarch, 
stept in, ▲.!>. 434, and ordained bishops in the 
Lupkratcnsian province. This act, of very 
ioubtfnl legality, excited serious displeasure, 
and was appealed against by Alexander and six 
of his soffragans. ** The crime of intrusion had 
been enhanced by culpable carelessness ; some of 
the newly-ordained were known as men of in- 
CuDoos character ; even branded for their 
•ffenccs" {A. 830-833, 865). Another act of 
interference with his prerogatives was felt still 
more painfully by Alexander. A church had 
been built by him in honour of St. Sergius, 
at the cost of 300 lbs. of gold. To erect this 
be had impoverished his own see and bur- 
dened it with debt. A town had clubtered round 
the church, called Sergiopolls. John, with re- 
prehensible want of consideration, chose this time, 
A.IX 434, to place a bishop over the new church 
vithout any communication with the munificent 
ioaadcr. His choice was unlucky, the new 
bishop was aecused, whether rightly or wroogly, 
•f bciaf one whose evil doings were known to 
slL An ni^teal to the Empress Pulcheria waik 
despatched by the bishops of the province, but 
ti»e iasue is not known {ib. 837-8, 865> A for- 
midable schism was thus created which was 
^MDcaiad by Alexander, and gained the adhesion 
•f Thaodoret, by whose conciliatory wisdom 
kowevcr it was nealed, and, with some mai'ked 
cxceptiooa, the bishops returned to communion 
vith John (A. 859, 860, 865, 866). 

The end was now near at hAud. Pulcheria and 
Tbeodosins had been carefully supplied with 
representations, coloured by no friendly hand, 
•f the evil to the faith resulting from the 
obstinate refusal of Alexander and the few who 
were left to support him, to communicate with 
th<«e wheae orthodoxy had been recognized by 
the Church. John had followed up the advan- 
tace gained, and had obtained imperial rescripts 
decreeing the expulsion and banishment of all 
bishops who still refuted to communicate with 
kxm (Baluz. 876). This rescript was executed 
ia the case of Dorotheus, Meletius of Mopsuestia, 
sad other recusants. Alexander still remained. 
John expressed great unwillingneMS to take any 
steps towards the deprivation of his former 
Iheod and associate, the object of such well- 
merited veneration, now also weakened by age 
and goat. He commissioned Theodoret to use 
kb indoem'e with him. But he had again to 
report the impossibility of softening his inflexi- 
bility. But he begged John to be patient with 
ti>9 old man, ** his obstinacy was caused by love 
•f the truth. He taught nothing but what was 
orthodox, and held his peace on the subject of 
(tatroreny both in speaking and writing. The 
rnweqaenoes of severity might be disastrous. 
Br was generally looked on as a champion of the 
tmtb ; his courage was admired, his piety uni- 
rcnally revered. A schism might ensue '(16. 871). 
J^^n, unwilling to resign all hope of bringing 
itm to nscyieration, sent a deputation of prelates 
t« enafer with him. But the issue was equally 



iafdeetual (A. 883-886). John now, A.D. 435, 
kU it impiMrihlt to oflar any further resistance 

to the imperial decrees. Four rescripts had been 
neglected ; the law must be suffered to take its 
course. The imperial officers, Dionysius, **Ma- 
gister Militiae per Orientem," and the Count 
Titus, his deputy, both wrote in terms of reve- 
rential courtesy, begging Alexander to save them 
the pain of executing the emperor's orders by 
acquiescing in his demands. His reply, filled 
with violent charges against John, finally closed 
the door of reconciliation. He simply begged 
that he might have timely private inrormation 
of the execution of the rescript, that he nught be 
able to leave without exciting public commotion 
(i5. 879, 880-1, 884). Titus issued to Libyanus, 
the President of the Euphratensian province, hit 
order for Alexander's removal, promising that he 
would come himself and support him by force if 
necessary (16. 881). But no compulsion was 
needed, the noble old man obeyed the order with 
calmness, and even with joy at laying aside the 
burdens and anxieties of the episcopate. He 
went forth in utter poverty, not taking with 
him a single penny of his episcopal revenue, or a 
book or paper belonging to the church. His 
sole outfit consisted of some necessary documents, 
and the funds contributed bv friends for the hire 
of vehicles to the place of'^his banishment (t&, 
868, 881-882). 

The banishment of their beloved and revered 
bishop overwhelmed the people of Hierapolis with 
the deepest grief. Fear of the civil authorities 
deterred them from any open manif»tation of 
their feelings. But they closed the churches, 
shut themselves up in their houses, and wept 
in private, dwelling with loving remembrance 
on the holiness of his life — the purity of his con- 
duct — the sweetness of his manners — the excel- 
lence of his instructions. The aspect of the city 
was so alarming to Libyanus that he deemed it 
necessary to apprise Titus of it, who desii-ed him 
to take measures to calm the excitement, using 
force if necessary to recall the people to their 
or'.linary avocations (16. 879, 881-2). John of 
Antioch also thought it requisite to write an 
apologetic letter to the clergy and people, assuring 
them that the course he had taken was not di^ 
tated by any personal pique at Alexander's beha- 
viour towards him, but was rendered necessary 
bv Alexander's opposition to reunion. Even now 
if he would enter into communion, he would 
restore him with joy (16. 883). Such a change 
was not to be looiced for from one so inflexible. 
Alexander's place of banishment was the mines 
of Phamuthin in Egypt, where he died, sternly 
adhiring to his anathemas of Cyril to the last. 
(Tillemont, MAn. EodeM, xiv. xv. ; Labbe, CotuiU, 
vol. ili.; Balux. X<n. CoUect) [K. V.] 

ALEXANDER, bishop of Jcbusalkm, was 
an early friend and fellow scholar of Origen at 
Alexandria, where they studied together under 
Pantaenns and Clemens Alex. (Eui. H. E. vi. 14). 
We know nothing more of his early life until we 
find him bishop of a city in Cappadocia (Eus. 
H, E. vi. 11); or, according to Valesius {NoL 
ad Eudeh.) and Tillemont {M^m. ExI. iii. p. 
183), of Flaviopolis in Cilicia. He became a 
confessor in the persecution of Severus, a.d. 20^ 
and was thrown into prison, where he continued 
some years. He was still a prisoner at the 
commencement of Caracalla's reign, a.d. 211, 
when he sent a letter by the hand of Clemens to 


oongntnlate tht Chnrch of Antioch on the ALEXANDER of Ltoopolis, wbo wrote a 
appointment of Asclepiades m their bishop in short treatise against the Manicheana, printed in 
the room of Serapion (Enseb. ri 11). The next Qalland's BiAioih, VetTum Patrmn, IV. pp. 73- 
jear he was released from prison, and, in frilfil- 87. Its title is 'AXt^d^ipov AwcawoXirou htf 
Bent of a row, and warned by a dream, visited rr^ty^ayrot 4^ (9y»w,* wpbt r^f MmwixoUv S^os. 
Jenisalem, where, in obedience to a dirine inti- Photins, Centra Man. L 11, calls him the Axch- 
mation, he was chosen coadjutor to the aged Nar- bishop of Ljoopolis {6 re r^s v^Xews A^jrvr 
cissos, then bishop of that see. This being the robs ipx^^P^^^*"**^* iyx^x^ipi^fJ^i^t r^/uws). 
first occasion of the translation of a bishop, as He must have flourished earlj in the fourth cen- 
well as of the appointment of a coadjutor bi^op, turj, as he says (o. 2) that he derired his know- 
in apparent violation of the canons of the Churdi ledge of Manes' doctrines kwh tAp yvwplfimw tov 
which forbade the transference of a bishop from iL¥9p6s. The treatise is divided into 26 diapters. 
etie see to another, and ordained that there should The author begins by statii^ that the philosophy 
not be more than one bishop in a city, it was of the Christians is simple and practical ; leaving 
deemed essential to obtain the sanction of the abstruse questions of ethics ami meti^hysics to 
whole episcopate of Palestine. A synod was those sciences, it endeavours with success (&t im 
summoned at Jerusalem, and the assembled rrit wtlpas ivrl fwfitlv) to make the mass of 
bishops gave their xmanimous consent to the mankind virtuous. Its reticence had led t« 
step, ▲.D. 213 (Hieron. de Script. Eccl.'j Vales, many heresies, as clever wits tried to push their 
Not in Euseb. vi. 11; Socr. viL 3p; Bingham, inquiries further, each wishing to surpass his 
OrigineSf bk. ii. § 4). On the death of Nar- predecessor ; and one of the most outrageous of 
cissns he succeeded him as sole bishop. Alex- these leaders was Manes. He gives in oc. S-i a 
ander's chief claim to celebrity rests on the sketch of the Manichean system; and then IbUows 
library he formed at Jerusalem, and on the an interesting chapter (c. 5) on the difficulty of 
boldness with which he supported his former arguing with persons who had bo fixed princi« 
friend, Origen, against his bishop Demetrius of pie sof proof, but relied on unsupported assertioas. 
Alexandria. To the collection of ecclesiastical The remainder of the book is devoted to an exa« 
writings, especially the correspondence of the mination of the different Manichean tenets by 
leading men of the Christian Church at the time, the accepted principles of Greek philosophy, and 
Eubebius expresses his grateful obligations in he shows one by one how all their ideas are in- 
furnishing materials for his history (Euseb. exact and contradictory when analysed scienti- 
ir. E, vi. 20). fically. The treatise is interesting, as a calm 
The charge brought against Origen bv Deme- but vigorous protest of the trained scientific in- 
irius was, that though still a layman, he had ven- tellect against the vague dogmatism of the Ori- 
tured at Caesarea to expound toe Scriptures and ental theosophies. In c. 5 he remarks that 
preach publicly in the presence of bishops, c. 216. « these myths might well attract those who 
This he had done at the invitation of Alexander accept doctrines without examination, since they 
and Theoctistus, the bishop of the city. Origen*s have even misled some who have studied philo- 
special offence was not that he taught being a sophy with ns.*' It has been much disputed 
layman, but that he taught when bishops, the whether he was a Christian when he wrot4 the 
authorised expounders of the Holy Scriptures, book, or even became one afterwards (cf. Beau- 
were present. On his remonstrance the two sobre. Hist de Manick. I. pp. 235-237; Fabric 
prelates wrote a joint letter to Demetrius, of Bibi. Oraeoa, VII. pp. 323, 324); but Photios' 
which a fragment is preserved by Eusebius, in testimony seems to settle the latter point. The 
which they defend themselves, not by a plea of book itself is written from a distinctly ethnic 
ignorance or exceptional circumstances, but by point of view, but the author is evidently &vour- 
an appeal to the usage of the Church Catholic ably disposed to Christianity (oomp. c I, and his 
They knew the custom to prevail at Iconium and remarks in c 24, on the plausibility of the ortho- 
other Asiatic churches, and they believed it to dox view of the Crucifixion as contrasted with the 
Srevail elsewhere (Euseb. H. E. vi. 19. See Manichean explanation of it.) \JL & C] 
piphan. Haeres. Ixiv. n. 2 ; Bingham, 0rigin€9, ALEXANDER I., bishop of Rome, is stated 
bk. XIV. c 4). The cause of objection was by all the authorities to have been the successor 
finally removed by Origen s ordination as a ^^ Evaristus. Eusebius in his History (iv. 4) 
presbyter by his fnends Alexander and Theoc- ^^^^ j^.^ ^^^^^ .^ ^ ^ ^^^ j„ y^^ Chronicle, 
tistus on his second visit to Palestine, c 230. ^ ^^ j j^ ^ g^^ jj^ ^ ^^ ^ y^^y^ ,^^ 
The friendship between /J-^nder and Origen ^ ^. ^)^^^ ' |-q j^ mj 
was warm and lasting; and the latter bears publio » / x. j 
testimony to the remarkable gentleness and ALEXANDER, a Valektinian with whom 
sweetness of character manifested in all Alex- Tertullian enters into controversy on the Incar- 
ander's public instructions (Orig. Homii. L in nation {De Came Chr. 16 f.). [Valehtikus.] 
Lib. Beg. No. 1). Alexander was again thrown Tertullian implies that he made an ostenUtious 
into prison at Caesarea in the Decian persecution, nse of syllogisms, and quoted as an authority 
where he died A.D. 251 (Euseb. H. i^. vL 46; certain Psalms of Valentinus. It is impossible to 
Hieron. Script. Eccl). »7 whether ho is identical with ** Alexander the 
Eusebius has preserved some fn^ments of old heretic," whom Jerome names as a commea- 
Alexander*s letters ; of that to the Antinoites, Utor on the Epistle to the Galatians {Praef, c4 
H. E, vi. 11, to the Church of Antioch, ib. ; to <?a/.> The writings of an Alexander of Libya 
Origen, H. E. vi. 14, and to Demetrius, H. E, and other unknow n authors are said by Porphyr y 
vi 19. These have been published by Galland, "rfhiT^^omia seems neomsry. as the entire *n^ 
BAlioth. Vet Patntm, vol ii. p. 201 sq. Clemens urates the idea that the author could bave ever hlanelt 
Alex, dedicated his Canon Ecciesiaaticus to him been a ManicbPin. .See Fabric BiU. Grate, (ed. Haiks^ 
(Kotcb. tL 13). [£. v.] viL p. 323. 



omUnponrj with Plotii 
to ihinr whctliar thajr wan In >iij mum Chri; 
tils produeliina. [H.] 

WALD, king of NanhnmbriK, who laeci'^l^ 
Ethflnd iD 77S, <ru pr<wDt »t tbe Lfemin 
Xartbiuubriu Council of TST, ud «u lUin 7x 
lAmgloSax. Oinm^ flor. Wig., Sim. Dnt. ), i 
ractoBad utHiag rautrn witE much tht i.,iiii 
right u King Aadirini. A chorch wu bailt i 
bwonr of him it tht place whin h« wu ^l.iir 
ud wlwn > rairaculoB* light u uid to Iim 
■faowm itaair (Sim. On.), Tix, at 8cjttf«1e 
UBT tha WalL [A. W. It.] 

ALHEABD (Edhtaid, Aleharda*, Algh^^r.! 
Edghtard), m bishop cf Elmhami omitt^] i 
> rionna'a Hit, DUlaai Hnabrth tha 
biahop ikaa bHD lahatitutid for him. H* ua 
pnacat at tha Irgatiu council of 786, aii.i .1 
l^t of CtoTaaho in S03, the deena of whic li h 
Bgaed with fonr pritata aod two daacona. II 
attnt* MTanl ehartan drawn up in coani il^. n 
WitcHgomota, bom TBS to 805, and he iid.'u!>t 
Ilea the panoo called Alchbarina ici the ch/Lrti.' 
ef WiBclMicaaib, gnot«l at the aHu«cnti..u < 
that nUiej in 811. Alcain'a SlTth latter v i.l 
dtoaed to him and Tidfrith of Dnnwic).. ' 
wlwn k* had haord tram Loll, one af [he ar.f.<.r 
tt (b* diaccM of Uuwich (Kambla, C. D. i I -: 
187, IftO, 193, 204. 228, 333, 247-, Spalmai,, 
Ome. L 301, 325 ; Alcoinl 0pp. L 270> [S.} 

ALHDX (AaUinn, Airhnn, Aelfhnn) tlu' 
eighth biihapofDnnwich : became biahop sibriut 
190. Ha eabacHbad aerenl ehartcn of UtTa 
brtweea that jeor and 793. Re died in T9T nt 
Sadb<ir7, ud waa bnhad M DnnwipJi (P. Wig. 
Jr. H. A«18iKamblaC. 0. t. 193,199; Chron. 
Stt. ad T»T). [S.] 

ALLOGENES.— I. lte»U(!oa> of "All.>v'<:- 

br rarph]rrr(l'. i>&t. 16) aa appealed to b^ tlie 
Cnoatien eBaUmpar*tj with rlotiniu. Qui it 

a> anlhor the plural title oftbe foltowiDg U.uJi. 

IL An apocrrphal book or terie* of WjIli 
bairing thia nam* ('AXAoYtnit) ia aaid b; K,,\. 
phuina to hlTt been Died bj the Sethiant (/larr. 
2WCX Arcboalici (292c; 297D), and ap^sriiiilv 
■ht atct wbom h* call) " Onoatid " (ib. ; el » J 
■)i all three being Ophite lecla. Under lii, 
une «<r* iDl*ode<l Seth and bit tertn sao-- (1 r, 
Baar, CAr. Cww. 201). The word it comtm.u m 
the Greek Bible lo denote n •' itnoger," t-y, i- 
ilij an alien, an iobabitant of Jndea not I'^.-m^ 
of Jawiah birlh. [ScTHum ; OtiiiTta.] ^11. j 

ALOGIAN'S, or ALOGI (fti>ra d privnti,, 
■ai Aiv«, il*iiitri of tin Logos, or at l«--< nr' 

tW atroageit wilaoH for the Logoa ; not t; ^ 

tXrfi. mmnaaamaiie). t heretical lect ofdiij'iit'l 
nirtcnec, who mu>t b* locatad in the Utiec i,..\( 
af tha Mcind cantnry (about 1T0> Epiph.inius 
ilTewtK] tba term IHotrtt. 1. 1, adv. M-^,;,. 
mf. 3) ta dunctariu their rejection of llji' 
ImiM Weed preached bj John ('*•! eir ilir 
Uyr ti Uxt"" Tin ira^ 'liidivta Kutrip-r,- 
titm. 'MJ^n^ .*,•*#.«■«> He tr«ee H.^ir 
wifii I* Thaodolna of Bjiantinm (/Awr. Iiv. 
', \\ Aeconling to hia npreaentiition iln'V 
kmkik, ia udtat appoaitioo to the Oantidism al \ 

Carinlhua «i th« one band, and to tha Hontaoliti 
on the other, that Jeiu Chriat waa tha (terail 
Logo*, ai tanght in John i. 1-14 ; and rtjrclad 
the fourth Gmpel and the Apooalypie aa prodoo- 
Uona of CeriDthai,* Heinlchen inpposaa that Um 
Alogi rejected oalf the Apocalypae, and not tbi 
fourth Ooapel ; but thia ii in direct oppwition ta 
the aaKrtion of Epiphaniui, who aaji (1. ch. 3) 
that if tbef had rejected tba Apocalrpae onlf, 
there might ha aome eicuac In confiideration of 
tha obecurit; of that book ; bnt ain« thej r^ 
jacCed al) the wrilinga of John, they ihowad 
clearly that thej belonged to thoae Aotichriala 
•pokes of 1 John ii. IS. (Comp. Batr. 1. ir. 1, 
whara )i* likesiae attributaa to tben the rejao- 
tion of tha Uoapel aa well aa of tha ApDcalj|« 
of John.) That they Bttribnled thaae booki ta 
Carinthna, the docetiit and enemy of St. John, 
ahowa their nttar want of critical judgment, 
They tried to refute the Goipel of St. John by 
the Synoptic Gupela, but with rary poor «rgn- 
menta. In opposition to the Uontaniata, tbaj 
alio deoiad the eontinoance of the ipiritnal gift* 
in the Church. It ii not clear from Epiphanlw 
whether the Alogi rejected only St. Jobn'i doc- 
trine of the Logo*, or alio tha divinity of Chriat 
in any form. He cilia them in hii Tiolent way 

(1. cap. 3) dXA^pui Torritaffir Tou Kllpijiarrat 
Till i\nt,iai i and aaya of their heresy (f/wr. 
tiT. c 1) that it denied tb« Goepel of John and 
the God-Word Uught therein (rir tr arr^ tr 
ifXi ^' ''^' Arfyor). Yet he clearly dijtiB- 
[Uiibea them IVom tbe Ebionita; and their 
ippoaition to Ctrintbni jmpliea that they ba- 
iierad in the real humanity of Chriat. Domer 
(HMory (/ CKrMalogy, i. p. 503, Germ, ad.) 
thinki It probable that they allowed no dia- 
tinetioDt in tha Godhead, and thonght that tha 
dirinity of the Father dwelt in the man Jean*. 
But thia would identify them with the Patri- 
pHaiana. Lardner (Worit, W. 190; tiii. 627) 
doubu theeiiitenceoflbi 

ncy of Epiphaniui to mulli[dy and 

id by Ire: 


both tbe Gotpel of St. John and the pro- 
photic Spirit (nmu/ rf nan,jeliuin tt propMiam 
reptllunt .'■•piritum ; Ado, Hatr. ill. c. 11, % B). 

.SnirHj.—EpiphaoIni, llaer. 50, and eapecially 
54; M. Herkel, Ilia^-ritck-kraackt Aufklanaij 
dfr StrfitigJcgit der Alog^r fiber di^ Apokali/ptia. 
Fronkf. and Leipi., 1782 ; F. A. Hainichen, iV 
A/c^is, T^todutiiini$ oti/nd Artgmonitit, Leips* 
1839 ; Neandcr, Kirthtnnack. i. ii. pp. 906, 1003 1 
Doner, L c rol. ii. pp. 50(U503. [P. 8.] 

ALPHEIU8, or ALYPIUa biihr>pafA». 
MEi in Syria Secuada, attended the Conncila of 
Neocaeaarea 315, Nicaea 325, and Antioch Ml ; 

of CatHrea wj 

(Labbe, Cone J. 
Coiut. lib. iii. c 

in Euaebjui 

elerled to the aee of A 
1518, ii. 58, 58S; luiaeb. \tt, 
2.) [L v.] 

ALRIC. ion of Wihtred, klog of Kent, Ua 
.._..__ .. U.J. - ^ \f ^itt hit brother! 

88 ALTO 


Kthelberht ui Eadberht, in T25. H» iun» li 
•ttKhed to the >ct of Wihtred in the Council 
of«ld bofore the jar 700. Willijini of 

computed from the death of Eadberht, who 

oatTing fail fitnen for the epiicopil oXo^ are- 
gory penuaded him to ntnm to Eugland with 
two other pnpila. Sigibodui aiul Undger, and >wk 
cooHcration. Alnbert went, and doriag the rear 
be ipent la EoglaDd enJoTed the wcietj oftha 

raigned tvrnty three, iad Ethelbec 
aleven, would bring down hii death to 791. 
But (hii ii bighlj iiopnibable. Flonnce of 
Worceiter, who confouodi Eadberht with Ead- 
berht Pren, makea no mention of Alric, who ii 
■Ik omitted by Henry of Huntingdon in hii 
Ibt of the kingi of heat, "'— "■ '-'■ — 

rated AI™ 

of Ken 

during the i 

K»nd half of th 

o Alric 

in charten at all. WilUamof Malme»- 
hnry aicribei to Alric the defeat inflicted by 
OSa on the Kentith king at Otfoid in 774; ar- 
guing probably from hi> chronology, for the au- 
thorities do not HAma bin.. It ia, Vowerer, jnil 
pouible that he lost his power at that time, and 
that some at lent of the CDntemporarr kings 
were Mercian viceroys. [3.] 

ALTO, an Irish minionary of illnstriona 
6mily, who Brrived id Bararia abont the year 

D. 743. tie I 
■ forest about 
Munich. His fani 

g the ei 

n Augsburg and 
f Pepin, 

narch granted him 

purpoM of erecting a monasiery ana a 

. Alto undertook the work, and with (he 

e people of the neighbourhood cleared 

dedicated by St. Boniface. The manaslery he 
built wu ^led from him Allo-Mun^r, which 
wu aflemrdi corrupted iota AH-Muwter. His 
memory was revered on the 91h of February, the 

il unknown. (Lanigsn's Eocl. Hiatory of frtlntul, 
iii. 189.) [G. F. M.] 

ALUUERHT. (1) Consecrated to the bi- 
ihopric of the East 8a»os» (CAr™. Duaelm. 
Its.), or of the Old Saions, in 76T. Simeon of 
Durham c-ills him Aluberhl, and makes him 
biihop of the Old Saium of Germany. 

amongst the Frisians, and orduning them to that 
high office. See the life of St. Liudger, Pert!, 
ifon. Oerm. ii. 407. [O. F. M.] 

ALWIO (Aluic, Alwih, Alowio<:hn^ Alwine, 
Alhuuig). The lifth biihop of the Lindisfari, or 
people of Liodsey ; consecrated by Tatwine, arch- 
btMfaop of Canterbury, in T33. He subKribed 
several charters from 736-747 ; and in 747 at- 
tended the council of Clovetho. His death ii 
pUced by Simeon oflhirhaiD in T50 (Flor. Wig. 
X. H. B. 62a j Cont. Bedae, U. II. B. 288 1 Kembl*. 
C. D. i. 89, 109i Will Ualmesb. Q. F. i.). [S.] 

ALYPIU6, bishop of Oaeubea in Ckppa- 
docia, one of (he metropolitans to whom th* 
Emperor Leo wrote respecting the Council of 
Chalcedon and the death of Prolerin* (&.D. 458). 
His answer is extant (Labb. Cone. W. 1904 aq., 
ed. Coleti). He is also mentioned la aaaenting 
to the deposition of Lampetiua, a Hnialiin, 
whom he had ordained and who waa oooyicted 
of immorality (Phot. iiiW. 52). [U] 


AHANDUS, a oative of Herbayna, in Aqui- 
tania, and of noble parentage, waa at an early 
period of his life dedicated to the monastic call- 
ing. About the year *J). 630 he wat, at the com- 
mand of Clothairt, consecrated a miscionary 
bishop, and selecting the neighbonrhood of Ghent 


rated ii: 

land for Germany, and identical with the mii- 
lionary Alubert. [ALUUKar.] Bnt the autho. 
lity of th* US. which waa used by Horeden and 
othen is better. He is there called Alberht, and 
made bishop of E>»ni; he thus correj^ponds with 
Ealdberht, the ninth bishop of London in the an- 
cient lista,aDd witb an Aldberht who signs various 
charten between 775 and 785. As however 
there were contemporary bishops. Aldberht at 
Herefcid and Eadberht at Leicester, he cannot 
be identified with 'certainly ; but is most pro- 
bably the bishop Eadlierchus, who attests the 
proceedings of the legatine council in 787 (Sim. 
bun. Jf. if. B. 663). 

(S) The fifth bishop of the Socth Siionb at 
Sebea. He i> known onl< by the appearance of 
liis name in the lists; his date must fall between 
747. when his predecessor Sigga was at the 
council ofClovedio, and 7<t5, when bit 

menced his e 



he IViiiaD tribes to 

forwke the » 

or«hip of 

nd groves 

and adopt 

the Christie 




ion. he DhUined a comn.' 


Dagobert, au horising 


V. toh.p. 

tise the paga 



to call in 

the aid of 

the Prankish 

n artying out 

he work. 

Such eipedi 

nts natu 


icited vi 

lent hos- 

tility, and t 

e wild F 


thwart all h 


At length. 

. .ir.nii, 



ed himMlf 

i'lefore long a striking incident rendered easy 
what the edict of Dagobert had only retarded. 
A thief, who had been already cmelly scourged, 
waGledforthtobehangeduponagibbet. Amandus 

Om aigni , Flor. Wig. M. If. B. 618.) 

ALDBERT, id eminent Anglo-Saio^ 
rimury, who went over from EngUud and 
GBr.aoRT, the puoil of St. Boniface, in i 
aaee of his school Kt Utncht. 

implored t 
life, and w 

len this w« 

be distnct to spar* bu 
denied, took the body 

dowu from 

the gallows 

and conveyed it to hia 

cell. Then 

the man r 

vived, and hia reator*- 

tion being 

number of 

the Frisians 

came forwani, offered to 

ntarily destroyed their 

temples, w 

hich Amand 

s diligently csnvntsd 

es and moons 


After M 

effort to attempt ■ ro<>- 

the savage Sclavea of the Danube, h* 

ted about th 

e vemr a.d. 646 to the 


and then devoted him- 

self with u 

ucensing ene 

rgy to the visiUtion of 

all parts o 

his diocese 

■ad the workofevange- 

liaing the s 


jmr A-D. 679. (IfAbillon, Acta Bfned. Saec. 
iL 681.) [G. F. M.] 

AMBR08IA8TEB, or Pseudo-Ambro6IU8, 
is tlM name generally employed to denote the 
nnknown anthor of the Cummentaria in xiii JEjMt- 
iolas beati Pauii formerly ascribed to St. Am- 
brose and nsoally printed along with his works. 
The ocnnmentary itself contains no definite indi- 
catioa of its aothorship. An incidental remark, 
howerer, on 1 Tina. iii. 15 : ** Ecclesia .... cajus 
hodie rector est Damasns" shows that it was 
written daring the pontificate of Damasas (366- 
364). It has been suggested, indeed, that this 
cUnse, which is not necessary to the sense of the 
passage, may possibly be an interpolation ; bat it 
seems even more diificnlt to account for its 
baring been inserted subsequently than for its 
iatrodnction at first. Other marks, negative 
and positive, point to the same period. The 
text which the writer uses is not the Vulgate, 
but one of the forms of the Latin version prior 
to the revision of Jerome. The ecclesiastical 
sathors to whom he refers — ^Tertullian, Cyprian, 
Victorinus — belong to an earlier date. Among 
the heresies which he mentions he applies him- 
self more especially and expressly to the confu- 
tation of those which prevailed in the fourth 
eentory— «.^. the errors of Arius, Novatian, Pho- 
tiaus — while the absence of allusion to later 
forms of error leads us to suppose that these had 
not yet emerged. He speaks of the Marcionites 
as on the verge of extinction (** quamvis pene de- 
fccerint," m Ep. ad Tamdh. L iv. 1.) All these 
arcnmstaaoes seem to show that the work may 
most fitly be assigned to the latter half of the 
fourth century ; although, in that case, it is cer- 
tainly somewhat surpri&ing that Jerome in his 
treatise De Scnpfy>ribus Eodewutida should not 
mention any other Litin commentator on the 
Pauline Epistles than Victorinus. 

It was the generally received opinion in the 
middle ages thai this commentary was the work 
of Ambrose, the Inshop of Milan; from the 
ninth century onward we find passages from it 
frequently quoted in his name, and in numerous 
instances the authorship is expressly assigned to 
him. But this belief^ which Erasmus was 
among the fint to call in question, is now uni- 
verMiUy admitted to rest on no sufficient grounds. 
Casuodoms, no doubt, mentions a report that 
2k. Ambrose had left an exposition of all the 
Eputlea of St. Pftul, but he states at the same 
time tikat be had been unable with all his diligence 
to fiad it (/ast Div. LAi, c. 8 : *' Dicitur etiam et 
Watam Ambrosium subnotatum codicem episto- 
Isnim omniam saacti Pauli reliquiae, suavissima 
cifioaittoae oomplctum; quem tamen adhuc in- 
^*VLt% noB potoi, sed diligenti cura perqniro.**) 
It aay rate the very marked difference in style 
brtweeo this commentary and the acknowledged 
vritimgs of St. Ambrose is of itself sufficient to 
cbew that it is not the work of the bishop of 
Milam. Moreover, the views expressed by the 
CDmm^atator are in various points inconsbtent 
vith the known opinions of Ambrose ; and even 
where they occupy common ground in the de- 
feaoe of catholic truth against Arian objections, 
it is remarked that their methods and arguments 
Materiallr differ. It would appear also that the 
aathor of tba comoientary had little or no know- 
Isdgi of Graak (at least he speaks at if depen- 



dent on others for information as to the readings 
of the Greek cocUces, in Ep, ad Bom. v. 14, ** Ac 
si in Graeco non ita cautum dicatur; sic enim 
dicitur scriptum, xii. 11 : tempori gervientes. In 
Graeco dicitur habere sic : Deo tervieniet ; quod 
nee loco ipcii competit ") ; whereas St. Ambrose 
was well acquainted with that language, and drew 
much of his theology from the Greek Fathers. 

But, while there is a general consent amone 
modem scholars in pronouncing the mediaeval 
opinion to be unfounded, there is no such consent 
as to the probable author. Many conjectures 
have been haxarded on the subject. Some havt 
regarded the work as wholly a compilation, the 
materiab of which have been derived chiefly 
from Chrysostom and Jerome ; but, as the Bene- 
dictine editors have observed, this view is not 
borne out by the facts of the case. .While the 
commentary, as it has come down to us, presents 
many passages that seem to have been derived 
from these and similar sources (and the extant 
MSS., as well as quotations, exhibit its contents 
with considerable variety and discrepancy), ita 
exegesis contains much that is independent and 
peculiar ; and the amount of apparent agreement 
— where it is greater than might otherwise be ex- 
pected in traversing the same ground — is explained 
by the circumstance that the work has been sub- 
jected in the coui'se of its transmission to nu- 
merous and extensive interpolations. The hypo- 
thesis which ascribes it to Remigius is set aside 
by the fact that the portions of the commentary 
extant in his name are quite different from this 
one. From certain expressions which appear 
favourable to Pclagianism the work has been 
assigned by some to Julian of Aeclanum ; but, as 
Richard Simon has naively remarked, "if the 
writer does not always appear orthodox to those 
who profess to follow the doctrine of St. Augus- 
tine, it must be taken into account that he wrote 
before that Father had published his opinions." 
The expressions in question were probably em- 
ployed without reference to the Pelagian contro- 
versy, and previous to its emergence, so that it is 
unreasonable to construe them as embodying the 
definite doctrinal positions of a later epoch ; and, 
besides, they are accompanied by others which 
are entirely incompatible with the supposition of 
a Pelagian authorship (e. g, the statement in Ep, 
ad Rom. v. 12, " Manifestum est in Adam omnea 
peccasse quasi in massi "). More recently Tycho- 
nius, author of the Liber de septem regulis^ has 
been suggested as the author, but without much 

The only positive statement as to the authorship 
is contained in the following passage of Augustine, 
CoiiUra duos epistolas Pelagianorwn, lib. iv. c 7 : 
" Nam et sic sanctus Hilariua intellexit quod 
scriptum est, in quo omnes peccaverunt : ait enim, 
* In quo, id est, in Adam omnes peccaverunt.' 
Deinde addidit : * Manifestum in Adam omnea 
peccasse quasi in massi ; ipse enim per peccatum 
corruptus, quos genu it, omnes nati sunt sub pec- 
cato.' Haec scribens HiUrius sine ambiguitate 
commonuit, quomodo intelligendum esset, io quo 
omnes peccaverimt.** As the words cited are 
found in this commentary, it may be rea5onably 
assumed that the statement applies to it, and 
that Augustine reckoned Uilarius its author. But 
who was Hilarius ? Of the persons of that name 
elsewhere mentioned by Augustine several, such 
as Uilarius of Syracuse to whom he writes ia 




414 (Ep. cItl), Hilarius Um bishop to whom he 
writes in 416 {Ep, clxxTiii.X HiUrius appnrently 
a laynuu whom he addresses de reUquUt Pdo' 
gianae kaereMOt (Ep, ocxxti.), as well as Hilary 
of Aries, flourished conaiderably later than the 
time of Damasus; while Hilary of Poitiers on 
tlie other hand died almost immediately after 
Damasus' acoessioa, and at any rate the direr- 
sity of style and of matter precludes the snppo- 
sition of the work having proceeded from his 
pen. The only person otherwise known, to whom 
it can be assigned, is Hilarius the Sardinian, 
deaccHi of the Roman Church, who was sent by 
Pope Liberins in 354 (along with Lucifer of Cag- 
liari and Pancratius) to the emperor Constantius 
after the Synod of Aries with a view to obtain 
the assembling of a fresh council and a reconsi- 
deration of the sentence on Athanasius, but, 
after suffering at this time stripes and banish- 
ment in the cause of orthodoxy, subsequently 
embraced the party of Lucifer and, on account of 
the seal with which he urged the rebaptizing of 
eonrerts from heresy, is sarcastically termed by 
Jerome ** Deucalion orbis " (DiaL adv, Lw^ifena" 
no$j 0d. Martiamay IV. ii. p. 305). By the greater 
number of modem scholars, accordingly, Hilary 
the deacon has been without scruple accepted 
as the author of the work, and it is frequently 
quoted in his name. But Petarius and others 
hare urged with considerable force as objections 
to this view, (1) that Augustine was not likely to 
apply the epithet tanctui to one whom he must 
hare knoyrn to be guilty of schism ; (2), that 
the deacon Hilary was not likely to own allegi- 
anoe to Damasus ; and (3) that the language of 
the commentary, which stroi^^ly censures those 
who insist on rcbaptism as derogating from the 
honour of the Sariour (in 1 Cor, i. 12), is in- 
consistent with the fundamental principle of the 
Luctferian schism — ^the necessity of renewed 
baptism for heretics. To the latter objection it 
is replied that the Luciferians insisted ost the 
rebaptism not of heretics in general so much as 
of the Arians in particular, who by their peculiar 
riews as to the Trinity emptied the baptismal 
formula of its proper meaning. The two former 
objections are usually met by the suggestion that 
Hilary may hare repented of his schism and become 
reconciled with the Church ; but of this there 
is no eridence, and the language of Jerome (/. c.) 
seems to indicate the contrary. These difficulties 
as to Hilary the deacon hare led the Benedictine 
editors to suggest as possibly the author Hila- 
rius, bishop of Paria, distinguished by his piety 
and seal against the Arians (Ughelli, /to/. $(w, 
tom. ii. part 2, p. 6); but this is, confessedly, 
a mere conjecture. 

There can be little doubt that, whoerer was 
the author of the work, it no longer retains its 
original form. The well-meaning zeal of a>py- 
ists appears to hare freely inserted oommenta 
from rarious sources, such as Augustine, Chryso- 
stom, and Jerome ; and in not a few passages there 
are literal coincidences with the language of the 
commentary which is printed at the end of the 
works of Jerome and is usually ascribed to Pe- 
lagius, so that the one work has eridently been 
supplemented from the other. These circum- 
stances sulBcicntly account for the rarious forms 
of the text in MSS., and for the discrepancies 
and inequalitim of treatment which are apparent 
ia sereral parts. 

There is, moreorer, a marked affinity between 
this commentary and certain portions of the 
Quaestionet Vetiria et Novi Testarpenti usually 
printed with the works of St. Augustine. The 
similarity of ideas and, in rarious cases, identity 
of language can only be explained* by supposing 
either that they hare had a common author, or 
that the writer of the one work has borrowed 
largely from the other. The note of time in the 
QtuusHones — 300 years after the destruction of 
Jerusalem — and some references to contempo- 
rary erents suit the period of Damasus, and 
hare induced many to ascribe this work also to 
Hilary the deacon. But the authorship of this, 
as of the other, remains uncertain. As the 
matter which is common to the two generally 
appears in the Quaestwnes under a more ampli- 
fied and diffuse form, it seems probable that the 
composition of the Quaestionea was subsequent 
to that of the commentary. 

The commentary on the Pauline Epistles, not- 
withstanding its inequalities of treatment, is of 
great ralue, and is well characterized by Sixtua 
Senensis as '* brief in words, but weighty in 
matter." Its expositions are generally concise 
and clear; and, although the writer ia fre- 
quently carried away by his zeal into contro- 
rersial discussion or ezbortation, he seldom 
loses sight of the text from which he started, 
and speedily returns to the proper work of exe- 
gesis. In consequence of his use of the old 
Latin rersion and frequent reference to rarious 
readings his work affonls important materiab for 
the criticism of the text. 

The commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
which accompanies the others in some editions, 
but is omitted by the Benedictine editors, is now 
generally admitted to hare no claim to such a 
place. It is a compilation from rarious Patris- 
tic sources, principally from Chrysostom. 

The work of the Ambrosiaster is usually inserted 
in the editions of the works of Ambrose. [Am- 
BBOeiUSb] The commentary was also issued sepa> 
rately at Cologne in 1530 and 1532. [W. P. D.] 

AMBROSIUSCA/i/3^tof). (1) of Alrxait. 
DRiA, a deacon according to Jerome (de Vir. Ill, 
56), the disciple and friend of Origen, died c 250. 

It is not certain whether Ambrose was a 
Christian by birth ; but he was of a noble and 
wealthy family (Orig. Exhort, ad Mart, 14,/; 49 ; 
Hieron /. c), and probably occupied some office 
under the imperial gorernment (Epiph. Haer, 64, 
3 : corop. Orig. L c c 36). Endowed with an 
actire and critical mind he at first neglected the 
simple teaching of the Gospel for the more {^iio- 
sophio systems of heresy (Orig. m Johann, Tom. 
r.). Some say that he attached himself to the 
Valentinians (Euseb. H, E, ru 18), others to the 
Marcionites (Epiph. /. c,\ others that he passed 
from the one sect to the other (Snidas, s. v.y. 
Howerer, when he met Origen he recognized his 
true teacher, and embraced the orthodox faith 
(Epiph. /. c). From that time to his death 
Ambrose devoted his whole energy to encourag- 
ing his great master in his labours on Holy 
Scripture, and ui^ed his fortune to further them 
(Euseb. JI. E. vL 23). Origen in a fragment ot 
a letter has drawn a striking picture of his dero* 
tion (Ep. 1. Suidas s. r. *Clpiyivj\i. Jerome, how* 
erer, refers the words to Ambrose of Origen, Ep, 
43, 1) : **Ua kft no leisure, he writes, for meab 


or TCft. Of the apace from dawn to the ninth or 
tenth hoar I say nothing. All students gire that 
time to the investigation of the Divine oracles 
tnd reading." Thus we owe generallj, it is said 
(Hieron. /. c ; ScM, ad Comm. m Johann, T. t.) 
•earlv all tHb eiegetic works of Origen to Am- 
hroee s influence ; and cepedallj the commentary 
on St. John (mJoAann. T. ii., initJ), It was at his 
request, too, that Origen composed his greatest 
work, the answer to Cebos (/n CeU. Praetl) ; and 
to him and Tatiana (perhaps his sister) he ad- 
dressed the beantiful treatise on Prayer. In the 
penecQtion of Ifaximinns I., 236, his friendship 
lor Origen, who had withdrawn to Cappadoda, 
exposed him in company with Protoctetos, a pres- 
byter of Caesarea, to severe sufferings '^Euseb. If. E, 
vt 28X and Origen expressed his sympathy with 
the two confessors, who seem to have been taken 
in confinement to ^ Germany ** (Orig. Exhort, ad 
Mart 41 ; Comp. Tillemont, MAnoirea iii. 119), 
in his Exhortation to Martyrdom, which is made 
up almost entirely of passages of Holy Scripture 
with brief applications to their special position. 
** We the poor," he writes, with strange pathos, 
* must yield in the glory of such a trial to those 
who sacrifice glory, property, and love of chil- 
dren " (c 15X for Ambrose was married, and had 
a fkmily (Orig. Ep. ad A/ric s. f.). Of the later 
deuils of Ambrose's life little is known. After 
the dmth of Maziminus, 238, he was at Nicome- 
dia (Orig. Ep. ad Afric. s. f.) with his wife 
(llarcelia) and children, and Origen met him 
there. He is mentioned egsin in the dedication 
and close of the answer toCelsus, c. 249, and this 
is the last notice which remains of him. He 
died before Origen (Hieron. /. e.) and therefore 
he cannot have lived more than one or two years 
longer. The reproach which Jerome makes (/. c.) 
that he neglected to leave any provision for 
Origen is probaUy unjuRt. It is at least as 
lik<*ly that Origen was unwilling to receive any- 
thing. Ambrose left do writings of his own 
eicept some letters, but it is evident that he 
ezerci*ed a powerful influence upon Origen, who 
eilled him his ** taskmaster,*' ipyiitiicrris {In 
Johann. T. v.^ and it may have been through 
hu seal in "* collation " (Orig. Ep. 1.) that Origen 
■ndertok his critical labours. The one chsrge 
jojtly brought acainst him is a proof of mis- 
taken devotion: he indiscreetly permitted the 
publication of some treatises of Origen which 
were nnrevised and intended only for his own 
nse (Hienm. Ep 84, 10). 

(t) "* A chief man of Greece," and a ^ senator," 
** who became a Christian," and, according to the 
title of the Syriac translation, wrote the ** Ad- 
dress to the Greeks " (A(^es vphs "EWJivas)^ 
which is published with the works of Justin 
Martyr (Cureton, SpicU. Syr. pp. xi. 61). There 
IS no other trace of this tradition, nor is there 
the least ground for identifying him with Am- 
bresc of Alexandria. [E. F. W.] 

AMBR0SIU8, bishop of MEDiOLAxm, from 
A.D. 374 to A.D. 397. 

The chief materials for a life of St. Ambn>se 
are to be found in his own works, which consist 
in great part of sermons, expository end special, 
aai include an important collection of letters. 
Anotlier source of information which promises 
to be of first-rate authority and value dissp{M)ints 
Iha rtmi^'s jost expectations. This is a Life by 



Panlimis, his noiarius or secretary, who had 
been with him at hb death, and who wrote thii 
work at the suggestion of St. Augustine. Pau- 
linus begins by laying down the rules of the 
most modem historioal criticism, declaring that 
he will relate nothing but what he has seen or 
heard himself, or wiiat has been communicated 
to him by those who spoke fVom their own per- 
sonal knowledge, amongst whom he names Am- 
brose's sister Marcellina ; but the Life proves to 
be full of prodigies, and adds hardly an vthing 
to what we learn from the works. The letters 
have been reduced to a chronological order with 
great industry and <au*e by the Benedictine 
editors of St. Ambrose's works, who have also 
digested the various particulars supplied by him- 
self into a useful biography of their author. 

Ambrose was the son of a father who bore 
the same name. The father was a Roman of 
the highest rank, and at the time of St. Am- 
brose's birth he was ' Praefect of the Galliae, a 
province which included Britain and Spain, and 
constituted one of the four great Praetorian pre- 
fectures of the empire. It is not known in 
which of the principal cities of this province the 
Praefect was residing when his son Ambrose was 
bom ; it may have been at Aries or Treves or 
Lyons. The only datum for determining the 
year of Ambrose's birth is a passage in one of 
his letters, in which, writing to Severus, a bishop 
of Southern Italy, he happens to mention that 
he is fifty-three years old, and at the same time 
contrasts the quiet of Ompania with the com- 
motions by which he was himself surrounded. 
Noa autem, he says, objecti barbaricta motihua at 
baihrwn procelUa, in medio weraamiHr omnium 
moleatiarum freto (Kp. lix. 3). There are two 
periods to which this description would apply. 
In A.D. 387 Maxim us, who had usurped the im- 
perial authority in Britain, and after causing 
the Emperor Gratian to be assassinated had exer- 
cised that authority in the Gallic provinces for 
some years, invaded Italy and occupied Milan. 
A few years later a similar usurpation took 
place, followed by a similar invasion. Arbo- 
gastes, a count of the empire but a barbarian by 
birth, having killed Yalentinian II., raised an oIh 
scure Roman named Eugenius to the imperial 
dignity, and in the year 393 the two crossed the 
Alps and entered Milan. On this occasion Am- 
brose left the city, and was absent for some time. 
In the following year, writing to Theodosius, he 
speaks of that emperor having rescued the Roman 
empire a barbari latronia immanitatu et ah usurjiO'' 
torts indigni aolio {Ep. Ixi. 1). This period would 
appear to agree rather better than the former 
with the po&sage in the letter to Severus. If 
we assume that Ambrose was fifty-three years 
old in A.D. 393, we shall place his birth in A.D. 
340. On the other hand it might be thought 
desirable to mske Ambrose an older by 
seven years, osjiecially as in letters ascribed to 
the year 389, when he would be forty-nine ac- 
cording to the oue estimate and fifty-six according 
to the other, he speaks of himself as if he were 
an old man (A/>/>. 47,48). This srgument, how- 
ever, has not weight enough to counterK-tlance 
the greater probability of the interpretation pre- 
ferred above. The year 340 was the third aftvr 
the death of Constantine, and Constans was the 
sovereign then acknowledged by the western 
part of the empirt. 



Paallniis begins hb Lif9 by relating how, 
when Ambrose was lying in his cradle, a swarm of 
bees came to his open mouth and flew in and out, 
as a prophecy of his future eloquence. The next 
Incident he records is another prophecy, from 
his account of which a note of time has been 
extracted by the vigilance of the Benedictine 
editors. Atterwards, he says, when Ambrose 
was a youth and was living at Rome with his 
mother, now a widow, and his sister who was 
already a professed virgin, seeing his female 
relatives kiss the hands of priests, he offered 
them his hand to kiss, saying that he should 
one day be a bishop. In one of his books (/>« 
Ftr^in»6tM, lib. iii. c. 1, 1), Ambrose happens to 
mention that Marcellina his sister had received 
the veil from the hands of Liberius Bishop of 
Rome on a Christmas-day. Liberius was made 
bishop in the middle of the year 352. It could 
not therefore be before the Christmas of that 
year that Marcellina became a professed virgin. 
In 353 Ambrose would either l»e thirteen or 
twenty years of age ; and it cannot be doubted 
that a boy of thirteen would be more likely 
than a young man of twenty to do what Pau- 
linus relates. M therefore Paulinus is here quite 
accurate, the later date for Ambrose's birth is 
strongly confirmed. Ambrose is said to have 
afterwards reminded his sister with a smile of 
this his boyish prophecy, an incident very likely 
to have been told by Marcellina to Paulinus. 

Atlter receiving a liberal education at Rome, 
Ambrose devoted himself to the profession of 
the law, which was then the usual path to the 
highest civil offices (see Oibbon, oh. xvii.). He 
practised at the court of the Praetorian Prefect 
of Italy, and so commended himself to Probus 
the prefect that he first advanced him in his 
court, and then gave him the appointment of 
** consular"* magistrate of the provinces of 
Liguria and Aemilia. There is again a prevision 
of the bishop in Ambrose's history : Probus, in 
dismissing him to his post, gave him the parting 
advice, Vack^ age non vt judtx^ sed ut ejnscopus 
(Paulinus, 8). 

It does not appear from our authorities how 
long this civil appointment was held by Ambrose. 
But it is certain that he made an admirable 
magistrate, and became known to the people of 
Milan, where he held his court, as a high-minded 
and conscientious and religious man. Whilst he 
was discharging his office, there happened the 
death of Auxentius, whom the Artan party had 
succeeded in foisting into the see of Milan. The 
Catholic party had now grown stronger, and a 
vehement strife arose with regard to the appoint- 
ment of a successor to Auxentius. The consular 
came down to the church to keep the peace be- 
tween the contending parties, and was address- 
ing the people in his character as a civil magis- 
trate, when a cry was heard, ^* Ambrose for 
bishop ! " The voice was said afterwards to have 
been that of a child. Whose ever cry it may 
have been, in a moment it struck the whole 
multitude that here was a solution in which 
both parties might acquiesce without the sense 
of defeat. By the Catholics Ambrose was no 
doubt well-known as an orthodox believer ; but 

* The empire was divided into one hondred and sixteen 
provtnoes, of which throe were governed by proconttiU, 
itarty^f^m by conndan, five by ccrrecton, and •eventj^ 
•M by prutdaUi.'-GiBBOv, ubi ngk 


the Arians also had respected him as a just and 
impartial man, and he had probably taken no 
active part in the great controversy of the age. 
The Catholics might reasonably hope that he 
would make a sound and good bishop ; the Arians 
might think themselves better off with this lay- 
man than they had feared to be. His high rank 
went for something with all (see the letter of 
St. Basil written to Ambrose on his appointment 
as bishop, Ep. Iv.). So there rose a unanimous 
shout, ** We will have Ambrose for bishop ! " It 
was a singular choice, even for those rougher 
and more tumultuous times, for Ambrose was 
not yet so much as baptized. But he was an 
earnest Christian in his belief, and had only 
been kept from seeking baptism by a religious 
awe, of which there were then many examples. 
He who had shrunk from being baptized natu- 
rally shrank from being made bishop. With 
undoubted sincerity, Ambrose made all the re- 
sistance he could to this popular nomination. 

If we could implicitly trust Paulinus, Am- 
brose used curious means to repel the honour 
thrust upon him. He mounted a loftier tri- 
bunal, and ** contrary to his custom he caused 
torture to be applied to persons on their trial.** 
But the people were not deceived, and cried 
'^Your sin be upon us." Then he went home 
and desired to ''profess philosophy," but was 
diverted from this purpose. Then he caused 
publicae mulieres to be publicly brought into his 
house, that this scandal might shock the people. 
But it was of no avail ; they cried the more, 
*^ Your sin be upon us!" Then he resolved to 
escape by flight, and left Milan in the middle 
of the night to go to Ticinum ; but he was again 
baffled, by finding himself in the morning nt\er 
a long journey at another — the Roman — gate of 
Milan. Then the Milanese people took him into 
friendly custody, and sent a letter to the Em- 
peror Valentinian to ask his judgment upon 
their election. 

Whether these stories be literally true or not 
(and Paulinus's Zi/«, as has been said, is full of 
prodigies), Ambrose himself frequently refers to 
the reluctance with which he had yielded to the 
call which made him a bishop. He was, he says, 
raptus a tribunalibut ad iocerdoiium {De Officii*^ 
i. 4.) What Paulinus next relates is probable 
enough. Whilst the messenger was gone to 
Valentinian, Ambrose again fled, and hid him- 
self in the house of a friend named Leontiua. 
When the answer of Valentinian was received, 
expressing his entire satbfaction with the people's 
choice, the vicariut or vice-prefect issued a notice 
calling upon any who knew where Ambrose was 
to give information. Leontius then gave up his 
friend, and Ambrose yielded. He was baptized, 
passed summarily through the intermediate eccle- 
siastical stages, and on the eighth day was con* 
secrated Bishop of Milan. This was in the year 
374 (a year atlcr the death of Athanasius, and 
before the death of Valentinian I.), Ambrose being 
thirty-four years of age. 

The vox populi was never more thoroughly 
justified. The consular magistrate was exactly 
fitted to become a great bishop. In any age he 
would have shone as a bishop, but that age wai 
at least as favourable to the development of his 
episcopal qualities as any other could have been. 
The prophetic appreciation of the Milanesa 
Christiana was echoed, after a thorough expe^ 




n«iice, by the Emperor Theodotins in the saying,^ 
** I hare known no bishop, except Ambrose." 
The foundation of his excellence was laid in a 
■infalar and onsnllied parity of character ; he 
had a natural lore of teaching and governing, 
Harm sympathies, eminent practical abilities, an 
midaanted courage stimulated by the ambition 
of martyrdom, and a religious spirit so devout 
and eager that the only faults with which he 
can be charged may be attributed to an excess 
of episcopal seal. In the see of Milan Ambrose 
had found precisely his place, and he laboured 
iikde&tigably in the work of a bishop for twenty- 
three years until his death. 

One of his first cares after his ordination was 
to divest himself of the charge of private pro- 
perty. As a member of a wealthy family he 
appears to have possessed both money and lands. 
What he did not give away to the poor or the 
Church or reserve as an income for his sister, 
he placed entirely under the management of a 
dearly loved brother named Satyrus. He was 
thus free to devote his whole energies to the 
work of his calling. His writings enable us to 
follow him in both hb ordinary and his extra- 
ordinary occupations. He was wont to ** cele- 
brate the sacrifice** every day (A/), xx. 15). 
Every Lord's-day he preached in the Basilica. 
His extant works consist mainly of addresses 
and expositions which had been first spoken in 
the church and were afterwards revised for pub- 
lication. They bear traces of this mode of com- 
po»ition, in their simplicity and naturalness, and 
also in their popular character and undigested 
form. Ambrose had to begin, as he ingenuou^ily 
declares, to learn and to teach at the same time 
{Diseendum igitur mihi timul et docendiun estj 
quondam non vacavit ante diacere, De Officiit, 
lib. i. cap. i. 4). He studied in order to teach, 
and he taught with a constant eye to edification. 
One would say that he was always thinking how 
he could give the best instruction to the fiock 
committed to his charge, from the emperor to 
the lowest of the people, so as to train them 
in soundness of faith and purity of life. His 
intellect was quick and unresting, fertile in 
illustration, in apophthegms, in replies. He had 
a reputation for eloquence ; but his eloquence 
was that of readiness and earnestness, rather 
than of flowing and imaginative utterance. He 
was also consulted as an authority in theology ; 
but he has no pretensions to genius either as a 
theologian or as a writer. In doctrine he fol- 
lowed reverently what was of best repute in the 
Church in his time, carefully guarding his own 
and his ueople*s orthodoxy from all heresy, and 
nrgin^, but with wholesome if not always con- 
sitteat qualifications, the ascetic religious per- 
fection which the best Christians were then pur- 
suing. The sacred books, for which he had a 
profound reverence, were to him, — what pastoral 
and didactic theology has always tende<l to make 
tnem, — verbal materials for edification, which 

^ (^HS wlkm Tbeodoslii\ at a celebration of the En- 
cksriM, afirr brtngtaig hU offering to the altar, had 
ivsaioed «lthia the rails of the saoctoary, Ambrone sent 
boa word thst that wa» the place for the clergy only, and 
'YVv^osias retired. Not long after, in the Basilica at 
OwMlsattBopie. he was ianiUA by the oflkiatioK bishop 
l» foirr the saaie sacred enekwire ; and be then oteerved, 
l ^ia sf — » tmtfim Jtmimtio, nevi nsMifiem.— Cfhco- 

was to be extracted from them by any and every 
kind of interpretation to which their letter could 
be subjected. His writings, therefore, or sermons, 
are chiefly of interest with reference to the his- 
tory and character of their author ; but thev are 
lively and ingenuous, full of good practical ad- 
vice, and interspersed with gnomic sentences of 
much felicity. 

One of the secrets of Ambrose's influence over 
the people was his admission of them into all his 
interests and cares. He had nothing private from 
the congregation in the Basilica. The sbter Mar- 
cellina, and the brothers Satyrus and Ambrose 
(this was the order of their ages), were imited 
together by a remarkable affection. The three 
loved one another too devotedly to think of mar- 
rying. Marcellina became early a consecrated 
virgin, but continued to feel the keenest and 
tenderest concern in her brothers* lives. When 
Ambrose became a bishop, Satyrus appears to 
have given up an important appointment in 
order to come and live with his brother, and 
take every secular care off his hands. These 
domestic virtues of Marcellina and Satyrus we 
learn from sermons of Ambrose. As soon as he 
became a bishop, he began to preach upon the 
excellence of virginity. His discourses on this 
subject became famotis, and attracted virgins 
from distant parts to receive consecration at his 
hands. These discounes, in the third year after 
his ordination, he digested into three books, De 
VirginibuSf which were addressed in their new 
form to his sister, and which contain, besides 
much praise of Marcellina, the address made to 
her at her consecration by the Bishop of Rome. 
A year or two later occurred the death of Saty- 
rus, in the flower of his age. In the depth of 
his grief Ambrose pronounced a funeral discourse 
upon his brother (/>« J-Jxcessu Satyriyy in which 
he made his hearers partners of his domestic 
sorrow, and laid bare to them without reserve 
the inner life of this exemplary family. The 
sermon preached over the body of Satyrus was 
followed up seven days after by another upon 
the hope of a future life {De Fide Hesurrec^ 

The relations of St. Ambrose with the sove- 
reigns who ruled over Italy during his episco- 
pate are the best-known feature of his life. 
The Bishop of Milan, exercising the authority 
of a patriarchate, and presiding over a city 
which was frequently the residence of the em- 
peror, was a great dignitary. But we cannot 
fail to recognize the high reputation which Am- 
brose had won for himself personally, and in a 
surprisingly short period, when we observe the 
deference paid to him by the emperors of his 
time. Ho was certainly fortunate in the sove- 
reigns with whom he had to do. The youths 
Gratian and Valentinian II., and the great Theo- 
doitius, were singularly virtuous and religious 
princes. From such persons Ambrot^ was likely 
to receive the honour which he deserved. 
Gratian was a boy of sixteen when the death of 
his father placed him on the throne, and in the 
year 377, the third of Ambrose's episcopate, he 
was two years older. In that year he was pre- 
paring to go to the assistance of his uncle Valens 
against the barbarian invaders by whom he was 
hard pressed ; and desiring t) be fortiHed against 
the arguments of the Arians whom Valens was 
favouring at Constantinople, he wrote to Am- 



brose, and asked him to Ainiish him irith a contro* 
Tendal treatise in support of the orthodox fiuth. 
Ambrose, premising in accordance with his real 
disposition that he woald rather exhort than 
dispute, complied with the pious jouth's request 
by writing two books Dt Fide, In the following 
year Chutian wrote a letter, preserred with those 
of Ambrose, in which he requests another copy 
of that work, together with an additional argu- 
ment upon the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In 
this letter he calb Ambrose parent. In the 
answer of Ambrose, which is the first of his 
extant letters, he begs that he may defer writing 
on the subject* proposed to him. In the mean 
time he amplified his former treatise by adding 
three more books to the two he had already com- 
posed. This work De Fide was reckoned an im- 
portant defence of the orthodox faith. 

The successes of the Gk>ths which attended the 
defeat and death of Valens were the occasion of 
frightful calamities to the empire, and serve to 
bring out by a striking example the humanity of 
St. Ambrose. From lUyricum and Thrace, especi- 
ally, an immense number of captives were car- 
ried off by the barbarians, and were exposed to 
sale by their captors. In ransoming these pri- 
soners the whole available resources of the Chiurch 
were exhausted by Ambrose ; and when every- 
thing else had been taken, he did not scruple to 
break up and sell tlie sacramental vessels. He 
himself relates this fact with pride (^De Off.^ 
lib. ii. 136). It was not that he did not hold 
these vessels to be sacred ; his sacramental views 
were very high. But he held human beings to 
be more sacred. " If the blood of Christ re- 
deemed their souls, should not the vessels which 
hold that blood be used to redeem their bodies ?" 
(^Tbid, 138). The act thus justified gives us a 
measure by which we may infer how deeply St. 
Ambrose was penetrated by that comprehensive 
and truly episcopal spirit of humanity, which 
afterwards shone so splendidly in the other great 
Archbishop of Milan, S. Carlo Borromeo. 

We now begin to see Ambrose taking a zealous 
part in the general affairs of the Church, and 
acting by universal consent as the leading eccle- 
siastic of his time. In the document which sum- 
moned the Council of Aquileia in the year 381, 
he is described by Gratian as et vitae merito H 
Dei dignatione conepicuus {Gesta Concilii Aqui- 
leiensis^ inserted amongst Ambrose's letters after 
Fp, viii.). He presides in that Council, and 
questions the two Arianizing prelates who were 
put on their trial before it. Several letters 
addressed to the emperor at this time in the 
name of the Council of Aquileia or of the Italian 
episcopate on the general government of the 
Church, are preserved amongst Ambrose's letters 
{Epp. ix.-xii.). When Acholius died — the Bishop 
of Thessalonica by whom Theodosius had been 
baptized — his death was formally announced to 
Ambrose by the clergy and people of his diocese ; 
and we have two letters in reply, one written 
to the Church, the other to Anysius the new 
bishop. The next two letters of the collection 
(xvii. xviii.) are addressed to the Emperor Valen- 
tinian, after the death of Gratian, to exhort him 
not to comply with a request of Symmachus. 
Thia eminent man, who was prefect of the city, 

• The work JDt ^ritu Sancto, In 3 books, was written 
Id the year SSL 


had made an appeal to the boy-cmperor in tlia 
name of the Senate, that he would replace th« 
altar of Victory in the Senate house, mA restore 
the ftinds for certain heathen ceremonies. Am- 
brose, whose influence was invoked by the Bishop 
of Rome, protested strongly against any such 
concessions to paganism ; and Victory, as it was 
said, favoured in the result her enemy more 
than her champion. 

The struggle between Ambrose and Justina, 
the mother of Valentinian II., which aA«rwards 
reached such a height at Milan, had been begun 
with a preliminary trial of strength about the 
appointment of a bishop at Sirmium. But when 
the usurpation of Maximus occurred (a.d. 383), 
and had been stained by the violent death ot 
Gratian, Justina in her alarm had recourse to 
the great Catholic bishop, and persuaded him 
to go on an embassy to Maximus, to beg him to 
leave Italy untouched. Maximus had 'Theodosius 
to deal with behind the boy-emperor and his 
mother ; «nd his first act, when Gaul had fallen 
into his hands, was to send to Theodosius and 
prop(»e to him, instead of war, the partition of 
the empire. Theodosius was constrained by 
motives of policy to assent to the proposal ; and 
Ambrose had the comfort of returning to Milan 
with the announcement that the new emperor 
would refrain from passing the boundary of the 
Alps. Allusions are made to this embassy in a 
letter of Ambrose (Ep. zxiv. 7), in which he re- 
ports the less successful issue of a later appeal 
to Maximus. 

It has been one of the chief glories of Am- 
brose in the Church that St. Augustine ascribed 
to him his conversion, and sought Christian bap- 
tism at his hands. The circumstances of his 
inUrcourse with St. Ambrose (A.D. 383-387) are 
related by St. Augustine himself in his Con/e*' 
sions [ACOUSTINUSJ. He tells us of the singu- 
larly eminent position of St. Ambrose (vi. S\ 
of his reputation for eloquence (v. 13), of the 
difficulty of getting an opportunity of conversing 
with him on account of his many engagements, 
and his habit of reading to himself when com- 
pany was present (vi. 3), and of his method of 
expounding the Old Testament by finding under 
the letter a spiritual or mystical sense (vL 4). 
As we pass from the one of these divines to the 
other, we cannot help wondering that the teach- 
ing of Ambrose should have been convincing and 
satisfying to Augustine ; and we are inclined to 
attribute more to the previous internal history 
of the illustrious disciple, and to the Christian 
earnestness of the noble-minded pastor, than to 
the reasonings of the preacher's sermons. These 
sermons, with their profuse and arbitrary inter- 
pretations and their constant practical applica- 
tions, seem more suited to interest and edify the 
staunch believer than to lead the doubter in hie 

It was during this period, in the years 385-6, 
that Ambrose defend^ the churches of Milan so 
stoutly against the intrusion of Arian worship. 
Jtistina, who patronized the languishing Arian 
party, was bent on obtaining one of the churches 
at Milan for the use of her friends. Ambrose 
was not likely to make the concession. How in 
this matter he resisted the violent efibrts 9f 
Justina, and the authority of her son (at this 
time 15 years of age), is described at length by 
Ambrose himself in letters to his sister Morcet 


Usft and to ValentinMii, and in a Mrmon 
ivreachad at the crisis of the itniggle {Epp, ix. 
ixU and the Sermo de BmHicis Tniuiendis which 
follows them.) There appear to have been two 
chorcbet at Milan, the one without, the other 
within, the walU. The former, as of less im- 
portanoe, was first asked for. This being refused, 
some persons of the conrt came to Ambrose, and 
begged him to concede—probably for partial nse 
only — the newer and larger basilica, and to exert 
his influence to prevent any popular disturbance. 
For it is important to obsenre that throughout 
the struggle the people were on the Catholic side. 
Ambrose replied loftily that the temple of God 
could not bo surrendered by His priest. The 
next day, whidi was Sunday, as Ambrose was 
officiating in the principal basilica, news came 
that polioe-agents had been sent from the palace, 
who were hanging on the Portian basilica the 
curtains' which marked a building as claimed 
for the imperial treasury. A part of the multi- 
tude hastened thither; Ambrose remained to 
Crform mass. Then he heard that the people 
d seised on a certain Arian presbyter, whom 
they met on the way. Ambrose began to prar 
with bitter tears that the cause of the Church 
might not be stained with blood ; and sent pres- 
byters and deacons, who succeeded in rescuing the 
prisoner unhurt. Justina, in her irritation, 
treated the rich men of the city as responsible 
fur a tumult, and threw many of them into 
prison. The imperial authority was being dan- 
gcronsly strained. Politic officials came to 
Ambrose and entreated him to gire way to the 
sorercign rights of the Emperor ; Ambrose re- 
plied that the Emperor had no rights over what 
belonged to God. A body of troops were sent to 
take pos ssis ion of the Basilica, and there was 
great fear of blood being shed ; but afler mutual 
apfieals between their officers and Ambrose, the 
soldiers withdrew, and Ambrose remained all day 
in the church. At night he went home, and on 
coming out the next morning he found that the 
church (the Portian) was surrounded by soldiers. 
But the soldiers were in awe of Ambrose, and, 
IcATuing that he had threatened them with ex- 
oMBsrounication, they began to crowd in, protest- 
ine that they came to pray and not to fight. 
Ambrose took the lesson for the day as the sub- 
ject of a sermon, and whiUt he was preaching he 
was told that the imperial curtains were taken 
down. The Emperor was worsted by the Bishop, 
and was n.-\turaily angry. He sent a secretary 
to reproach Ambrose, and ask if he meant to 
make him^lf a tyrant. Soldiers continued to 
lurroond the church, snd Ambrose remained there 
sin^inz psalms with the faithful. The next day 
the soldiers were withdrawn, and the merchants 
who h^d been imprisoned were released. The 
struggle wait nrer ; but Ambrose heard that the 
Lra|ier«>r had sHi«l bitterly to the soldiers, "If 
Ambrose ordtrs you, you will give me up in 
chains.** He records another ssying, which drew 
from him a retort of characteristic felicity. 

< Tbis Is the hiinprtistioo given by Godrfridas to the 
sbU ssraClcoKl by Ambrose (Xp. xx. 4). Gibbon ssys. 
*tW tptrwUa canopy arid hangings of tte royal §fl 
«m smag"tl in a cniUxnary manocr ;" Uras hi> adorns 
Jfes trnt words * vria susprnderpiiu" But li appears from 
iliv that wblUt Ambrose was inside thr churefa, 
that the banfinp wars bsinc talwn 



The court chamberlain sent him a message: 
** Whilst I am alire, shall you despise Valen- 
tinian ? I will take off your head. Ambrose 
answered : ** May God grant yon to fblfil what 
you threaten ; for then my fate will be that of 
a bishop, your act will be that of a eunuch." 

In the cotirse of the following year the at- 
tempts of the Arian party, and of the Emperor 
as at this time goremed by that party, were 
renewed. Ambrose was asked to hold a discus- 
sion with Auxentins, an Arian bishops before 
chosen judges in the presence of the Court, or 
else to withdraw from Milan. He consulted such 
bishops and presbyters as were within reach, and 
in their name wrote a letter to the Emperor 
{Ep, xxi.), declining the discussion. An alarm 
was sproiid amongst the people that he was 
going to be taken away from Milan, and for 
some days, by night and by day, he was sur- 
rounded and watched by an immense concourse 
of his fr.ends. He preached them a sermon (Ds 
Basiticit Tradendii), assuring them of his stosd- 
fastness, and encouraging Uiem to confidence, 
and at the same time gave them hymns composed 
by himself to sing — hymns in honour of the 
Trinity — by which their ferrour was greatly 
stimulated. Again the Court party found them- 
selves worsted, and they appear to haye given 
way without provoking a crisis. 

The singing of hymns, by which this remark- 
able occupation of the Basilica was characterised, 
J described by St. Augustine as extremely mov- 
ing {OmfcMB, vi. 7X and is said by him to have 
been an imitation of Eastern customs, and to 
have been followed generally throughout the 
Church. Pauliniis also observes that at this 
time " antiphons, hymns, and vigils, began to be 
performed in the Church of Milan, and had 
spread thence amongst all the Churches of the 
West (TiVa, 13)." What was the precise mode 
of singing thus introduced is not known. But 
the reputation of St. Ambrose as a composer of 
hymns was such that many hymns certainly not 
his have been attributed to him, and amongst 
them the Te Dcum, The Benedictine Edition 
gives twelve hymns, which there is some good 
authority for ascribing to Ambrose, the best 
known of which are those beginning Aeteme 
rerum conditor^ Deus creator omni'tim, IVni, rc- 
demptor gentium, and lux beata Trinitna, 
They have a brightness and felicity which have 
reasonably made them favourites in the Church 
from their author's day to the present. 

We ought to take into account the state of 
mind to which the bishop and his flock must 
have been wrought up together by that pro- 
tracted vigil in the basilica, when we read of the 
miracles into which their triumph over heresy 
blazed forth at last. We have a narrative from 
St. Ambrotte's own pen, in a letter to Marcellina 
{Ep. xxii.X of the wonderful discovery of the 
remains of two martyrs, and of the cures wrought 
by them. A basilica was to be dedicate<l, and 
Ambrose was longing to find some relioi of 
martyrs. A presage suddenly struck him. (This 
** presagium * is called a vision bv St. AugU!«- 
tine, Cnf. Ix. 7, Ih Cir. Ihi, xxii. 8). He 
caused the ground to be opene<l in the churrh 
that was consecrated by the remains of St. Felix 
and St. Nabor. Two bodies were found, of won- 
derful size (ut prisca aetas ferebat), the heads 
severed from the shoulders, the tomb stained 




with blood. This discorerj, so precious to a 
Church ^ barren of martyrs,'* was welcoined 
irith the wildest enthusiasm. Old men began 
to remember that they had heard formerly the 
names of these martyrs — Gerrasius and Prota- 
sins — and had read the title on their grare. 
Miracles crowded thick upon one another. They 
were mostly cures of demoniacs, and of sicltly 
persons ; but one blind man received his sight. 
It is nothing that Paulinus reports this miracle ; 
for he relates many more wonderful things, for 
which we have no other authority but his. But 
Ambrose himself, for once, eagerly and positively 
affirms the reality of the cure ; and Augustine, 
who generally held that the age of miracles was 
past, also bears witness to the common acceptance 
of the fact at Milan. Gibbon has some excuse 
for his note, ** I should recommend this miracle 
to our divines, if it did not prove the worship of 
relics, as well as the Xicenc Creed." The Arians, 
as we learn from Ambrose and Paulinus, made 
light of the healing of demoniacs, and were 
sceptical about the blind man's history. The 
martyrs' bones were carried into the ** Ambro- 
sian " basilica (now the Church of S. Ambrogio), 
and deposited beneath the altar in a place which 
Ambrose had designed for his own remains. 

The memory of this conflict did not restrain 
Justina and her son from asking help shortly 
after of Ambrose. It was evident that Maximus 
was preparing to invade Italy ; and as Ambrose 
had apparently been successful in his former 
embassy, he was charged with another concilia- 
tory appeal to the same ruler. The magnani- 
mous bishop consented to go, but he was un- 
favourably received, and having given great 
offence by abstaining from communion with the 
bishops who were about Maximus, he was sum- 
marily ordered to return home. He reports the 
failure of his mission in a letter to Valentinian 
(Ap. xxiv.) It b worthy of remark that the 
punishment of heresy by death was so hateful to 
Ambrose that he declined communion with 
bishops who had been accomplices in it (qui 
aliquos, devios licet a fide, ad necem petebant, 
/6k/. 12). These bishops had prevailed on Maxi- 
mus to put to death Priscillian — the first time 
that heresy was so punished. [Priscillianus.] 

Maximus was not diverted from his project. 
He crossed the Alps, and Justina, with her son, 
fled to Theodosius. It was not long before the 
vigour and ability of Theodosius triumphed over 
Maximus, who perished in the conflict he hod 
provoked. Ambrose, who withdrew from Milan 
when Maximus came to occupy it, appears to 
have been near Theodosius in the hour of victory, 
and used his influence with him in favour of 
moderation and clemency, which the Emperor, 
according to his usual habit, displayed in an 
eminent degree {Ep. xl. 32). But we have now 
to mention an instance in which Ambrose un- 
happily prevailed upon Theodosius to abandon 
a course which his stricter sense of his duty as a 
ruler had prompted him to take. In some ob- 
scure place in the East, the Christians h&d been 
guilty of outrages, from which it had otten been 
their lot to sufier. With the support of their 
bishop, they had demolished a Jewish synagogue 
and a meeting-house of certain Gnostic heretics. 
Theodosius, hearing of this violence, had ordered 
that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue at 
hk own ezpsDM, and that the rioters, who were 

chiefly monks, should be punished at the discre- 
tion of the local governor. This order natarally 
affronted the party spirit of the Christians. Am- 
brose could not bear that his fellow-believers 
should be thus humiliated. He wrote a letter 
to the Emperor (who was at Milan, Ambrose 
being for the moment at Aquileia), entreating 
him most earnestly to revoke the order. With 
much that Ambrose says we can sympathize; 
but he li^s down a principle fruitful in disastrous 
issues: Ctdat oportet cfjuura (the functions of 
the civil ruler) devotioni {Ep, xl. 11). Shortly 
after, he had the opportunity of preaching before 
the Emperor at Milan. In a letter to his sister 
he gives the sermon at length, with its conclu- 
sion, addressed directly to the Emperor, and 
begging of him the pardon of those who had 
been caught in a sin. When he came down from 
the pulpit, Theodosius said to him, Dc nobis pro^ 
pnsuisti, "Only with a view to your advan- 
tage," replied Ambrose. " In truth," continued 
the Emperor, " the order that the bishop should 
rebuild the synagogue was too hard. But that 
is amended. The monks commit many crimes." 
Then he remained silent for a while. At last 
Ambrose said, " Enable me to ofier the sacriflce 
for thee with a clear conscience." The Em- 
peror sat down and nodded, but Ambrose would 
not be satisfied without extracting a solemn 
engagement that no further proceedings should 
be taken in the matter. After this he went up 
to the altar : " but I should not have gone," 
adds Ambrose, ** unless he had given me his full 
promise" {Ep, xli. 28). 

About two years later (aj>. 390), the lament- 
able massacre at Thessalonica gave occasion for a 
very grand act of spiritual discipline. The com- 
mander of the garrison at Thessalonica and 
several of his officers had been brutally mur- 
dered by a mob in that city. The indignation 
of the Emperor was extreme ; and after appear- 
ing to yield to gentler counsels, he sent orders, 
which were executed by an indiscriminate 
slaughter of at least 7lKK) persons in Thessalonica. 
This frightful vengeance shocked the humanity 
of the Christians in general, and Ambrose felt 
bound to protest against it in the name of God 
and of the Church. He had always acted on the 
principle that *^ nothing was more dangerous 
before God or base amongst men than for a priest 
not to speak out his convictions freely," and hb 
lofty disinterestedness (non pro meii ccmmodU 
faciebaniy Ep, Ivii. 4) gave him great power over 
a religious and mi*^nanimous mind like that of 
Theodosius. Ambrose now wrote him a Utter 
(A;>. li.), which Gibbon most unjustly calls ** a 
miserable rhapsody on a noble subject," but 
which most readers will feel to be worthy of its 
high purpose. W^ith many protestations of re- 
spect and sympathy, Ambrose urges his Emperor 
to a genuine repentance for the dreadful deed to 
which in an access of passion he had given his 
sanction. He intimates that he could not cele- 
brate the Eucharist in the presence of one so 
stained with blood. Historians have not failed 
to make the most of this striking act of disci- 
pline. Gibbon in particular represents the be- 
haviour of Ambrose as marked by a prelatical 
pomposity, of which there is no trace whatever 
in the only documents on which we can rely* 
In his own letter the bishop is most considon^ 
and tender, though evidently resolnto, Uo 


ffiuliBos record simply that the Emperor per- 
fenned public penaoce, stripping himself of his 
roral iosignia, and praying for pardon with 
groans and tears ; and that he nerer passed a 
daT afterarards withont grieving for his error 
(PJraliniu 24; Amb. De Ob. Theod. 34). Theo- 
duret (t. 18) adds that the Emperor refrained 
from coming to charch for eight months, that 
then on Christmas Day he sought to enter the 
church, but that Ambrose met him, reprored 
him sternly, and would not allow him to be pre- 
sent at the Eucharist until he had done penance 
openly, and had further promised to make a law 
enacting that no criminal should be put to death 
till 30 days after the sentence : but no depen- 
dence is to be placed on Theodoret's accuracy. 
Those who have become impressed by the pro- 
found and aHectionate respect which each of 
these noble-minded men felt for the other, will 
he dbpoeed to beliere as to this matter what 
they learn ftt>m Ambrose himself, and not much 

In the course of the following year (391), 
Theodosius baring returned to the East, the 
weak authority of Valentinian II. was orerthrown 
W Arbogastes and his pup])et Eugenius, and the 
anfortunate youth perished by the same fate as 
kli brother, lie was in Oaul at the time of his 
death, and Ambrose was at that moment cross- 
iae the Alps to visit him there, psrtly by the 
deure of the Italian magistrates, who wished 
Valentinian to return to Italy, and partly at 
the requejtt of the Emperor himself, who was 
ansioos to be baptized by him. In the next year 
(H92X a funeral oration was delivered at Milan 
by Ambrose {De Ointu Vaientiani)y in which he 
pni«es the piety as well as the many virtues 
<:i the departed. It appears that under the in- 
fluence of Theodosius, Valentinian had learnt to 
regard Ambrose v.ith the same reverence as his 
brother had done before him (Letter to Theodo- 
sius Ajo. liii. 2). He had died unbaptized ; but 
AmbroM assures his sorrowing sisters that his 
d«^ire was equivalent to the act of baptism, and 
tbat he had been washed in his piety as the 
martyrs in their blood {De Ob. Val. 51-53). 

Lugenius held tht sovereign power in the West 
for two or three years, and made friendly over- 
tures to the great Italian prelate. But Ambrose 
for a time returned no answer ; and when 
Lugenins came to Milan, he retire<l from that 
citv. Shortlv after this withdrawal, he wrote 
a resjiectfal letter to Eugenius, explaining that 
the reason why he had refused to hold inter- 
coune with him was that he had given permis- 
umb, though himself a Christian, that the altar 
of Victorr should be restored — the boon which 
i^nmnachus had begged for in vain being yielded 
to the power of Arbo^^tes. 

When the military genius and vigour of Theo- 
dusins had gained one more brilliant triumph by 
*a« rapid overthrow of Arbogastes and Eugenius, 
Ambrose, who had returned* to Milan (August, 

* Dunac his abarace. as PaoUnus relates, St Ambrose 
Bini a Utile buy to Ufe. I^ultnos glvps all the drtslls. 
Tk rMU's name was PSnsiiphias, his father sn eraiocnt 
iVhii— at Fibrenoe. named Dronis. Ambrose flnS curvd 
fticiiUaf anand'snipirft, and « ben be died a few days 
*^, tmin^lkag raaLlty U»e procw^loffs of iai*ba with the 
(Wl af ibp Sbunainaitle widow, raised bim U> life a^oUn. 
Tb iMi ftoaupMus he aflerwanb addreaoed a book of 
^t^wakm. « He hse nei mmtioned the CmI In his 

ouwr. Btuem. 



A.f). 394), received there a letter from Theodo- 
sius requesting him to offer a public thanksgiving 
for his victory. Ambrose replies (Ap. Ixi.) with 
enthusiastic congratulations. But the happiness 
thus secured did not last long. In the following 
year the gi'eat Theodosius died at Milan (January, 
A.D. 395), asking for Ambrose with his last 
breath {De Obitu Thcod, 35). The bishop had 
the satisfaction of paying a cordial tribute to h» 
memory in the funeral oration he delivered over 
his remains. 

Ambrose himself had only two more years to 
live. The time was filled with busy labours of 
exposition, correspondence, and episcopal govern- 
ment ; and according to Paulinus, with various 
prodigies. Unhappily this biographer spoils 
with his childish miracles what is still a touch- 
ing account of the good bishop's death. It be- 
came known that his strength was failing, and 
the Count Stilicho, saying that the death of such 
a man threatened death to Italy itself, induced a 
number of the chief men of the city to go to 
him, and entreat him to pray to God that his life 
might be spared. Ambrose replied, "• 1 have not 
so lived amongst you, that I should be ashamed 
to live ; and I do not fear to die, because we have 
a good Lord."' As he lay on his death-bed, some 
of his deacons were speaking together m whis- 
pers about his successor, and mentioned the name 
of Simplicianus ; to their distress, they found the had overheard them, for he said three 
times, " An old man, but a good man." For 
some hours before his death, he lay with his 
hands crossed, praying ; as Paulinus could see 
by the movement of his lips, though he heard no 
voice. When the lost moment was at hand, 
Honoratus, the Bishop of Vercellae, who was 
lying down in another room, thought he heard 
himself thrice called, and cnme to Ambrose, and 
offered him the Body of the Lord ; immediately 
af^er receiving which, he breathed his last 
breath ; — a man, Paulinus snys well, who for the 
fear of God had never feared to speak the truth 
to kings or any powers. He died on Good Friday 
night, 4th-5th April, 397, and was buried in the 
Ambrosian basilica, in the presence of an innu- 
merable multitude of every mnk and age ; mnny 
Jews and Pagans joining with his flock to pay the 
last honours to the fearless and large-hearted 

By the weight of his character St. Ambrose 
gave a powerf\il support to the tendencies which 
he favoured. But his influence upon opinion is 
not conspicuous except in one point — the grow- 
ing exaltation of ecclesiastical over secular au- 
thority. He held without misgivings that the 
Church was the organ of Gp<l in the world, and 
that secular government had the choice of being 
either hostile or subservient to the Divine aittho- 
rity ruling in the Church. To passages already 
quoted which express this conviction may be 
added a remark let fall by Ambrose at the 
Council of Aquileia, **Sacerdotes de laicis judi- 
care debent, non laici de saccrdotibus." — Uesta 
Cone, Aqu. 51. He was of strict Athaua^ian 
orthodoxy as against heresy of every colour. 

writings, but bj what feeling the omifskni was prompted 
li Is not for me," Mys l*aulinus. ** to Judge." - /.f/c, ^ 2S 

' SC AiigusUito «as wmit to rxpress hid p ciiliar adml> 
ration of this saying. «lth Its tUmaia oc ItlinKa wrte.-* 
Puaaidlua, ViL Amg, c xtrtL 





His newv of th« w^ork of Christ, in th« Incarna- 
tion, the Passion, and the Resurrection, have in 
a marked degree the broad and universal charac- 
ter which belongs to the higher patristic theo- 
logf on this subject. (For example, speaking of 
the resurrection of Christ, he says, ** Resurrezit 
in eo mundus, resurrexit in eo coelum, resurrexit 
in eo terra," De Fide Re%. 102.) With regard 
to religion and religious practices, he is emphatic 
in insisting that the worship of the heart is all- 
important (Deo enim velle pro facto est, D9 Fide 
Res, 115 ; Deus non sanguine sed pietate placa- 
tur, t&u/. 98; non pecuniam Deus ied fidem 
quaerit, De Poen. ii. iz.) ; but at the same time 
his language concerning the two Sacraments is 
oAen undeniably that of materializing theology. 
Attempts have been made, chiefly on this ac- 
count, to call in que.<(tion the Ambrosian author- 
ship of the treatises De Mysteriis and De Sacra' 
mentia; but their expressions are supported by 
others to be found in undoubted works of Am- 
brose. He praises his brother Satyrus for hav- 
ing tied a portion of the consecrated elements 
in a napkin round his neck when he was ship- 
wrecked, and adds, that having found the benefit 
of ** the heavenly mystery " in this form, he was 
eager to receive it into his mouth — "quim 
majus putabat fusum in viscera, quod tantum 
sibi tectum orario profuisset I '* — De Exc. !Sat. 
43, 46. He argues for the daily reception of 
the Eucharist from the prayer. Give us this day 
our daily bread. — De Sacr. v. 25. 

The strong commendations of virginity which 
are to be found throughout his works, but espe- 
cially in several small treatises on this subject, 
are based, not on a theory of self-denial, but 
mther on one of detachment from the cares of 
the world and the troubles inseparable from 
matrimony and parentage. According to him, 
marriage is the more painful state, as well as 
the less favourable to spiritual devotion. Never- 
theless, he did not expect or desire a large num- 
ber to embrace the life which he so highly eulo- 
gised. "Dicet aliquis: Ergo dissuades nuptias? 
ego vero suadeo, et eos damno qui dissuadere 
cousuerunt .... Paucarum quippe hoc munus 
(virginity) est, illud omnium." — De Virginibus, 
I. vii. He and his sister used to press Satyrus 
to marry, but Satyrus put it off through family 
affection — " ne a fratribus divelleretur." — De 
Exc, Sat. §§ 53, 59. Fasting b commended, not 
as self-tort ui-e pleasing to God, but as the means 
of making the body more wholesome and strons^er. 
A keen sense of the restraints and temptations 
and annovances which reside in the flesh is ex- 
pressed in Ambrose's remarkable language con- 
cerning death. It is a great point with him 
that death is altogether to be desired. He 
argues this point very fully in the address De 
Fide RemrrectioniSj and in the essay De Bono 
Mortis. There are three kinds of death, he says, 
the death of sin, death to sin, and the death of 
the body (De B. M. § 3). This last is the 
emanci]>ation of the soul from the body. He 
appeals to the arguments of philosophers and to 
the analogies of nature, as well as to Scripture, 
to show not only that such a deliverance may 
be hoped for, but that it must be a thing to be 
desired by all. The terrors of the future state 
almost entirely dUappear. He admits now and 
then that punishment must be looked for by the 
wicked ; but he aflirms that even to the wicked 

death is a gain. ** Non quia amara lit mors, aed 
quia impio amara ; et tamen amarior vita qoam 
mors. Gravius est enim ad peccatnm rirere, 
quam in peccato mori: quia iropius quamdin 
Tivit peccatum auget; si moriatur, peccare 
desinit."— />0 Bono Mortis^ § 28. There are two 
reasons why the foolish fear death : one, because 
they regard it as destruction; '^ altera, quod 
poenas reformident,. ))oetarum sdiicet fabulis 
territi, latratus Cerberi, et Cocyti fluminis tris- 
tem voraginem, &c. &c. Haec plena sunt fabu- 
larum, nee tamen negaverim poenas esse post 
mortem.*'— /6u/. 33. **Qm infidelea sunt, de- 
scendunt in infernum viventes; etsi nobiscvm 
videntur vivere, sed in inferno sunt." — Ibid, 56. 

The see of Milan was in no way dependent 
upon that of Rome; but Ambrose always de- 
lighted to pay respect to the Biohop of Rome, aa 
representing more than any other the unity of 
the Church. His feeling towards Rome is ex- 
pressed in the apology with which he defends 
the custom of washing the feet in baptism — a 
custom which prevailed at Milan but not at 
Rome. ^ In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Ro- 
manam ; sed tamen et nos homines senaum habe- 
mus; ideo quod alibi rectius serratur, et nos 
rectius custodimua. Ipsum sequimur aposto- 
lum Petnim, .... qui sacerdos fuit Ecdesiae 
Romanae." — De SacramentiSj III. §$ 5, 6. 

As a writer, St. Ambrose left a multitude of 
works behind him, the general character of which 
has already been described. They show compe- 
tent learning, a familiar acquaintance with 
Plato, Cicero, Virgil, and other classics, and much 
intellectual liveliness and industry. Their want 
of originality did not hindert hem from obtain- 
ing for their author, through their popular and 
practical qualities, a distinguished reputation as 
a sound and edifying teacher. He is often men- 
tioned with respect by his contemporaries, St. 
Jerome and St. Augustine (see especially the 
latter, De Doctrind Christiana, iv. 46, 48, 50). 
He came to be joined with them and Gregory 
the Great as one of the Four Latin Doctors of the 
Church. His writings may be classified under 
three heads, as (1) Expository, (2) Doctrinal or 
didactic, and (3) Occasional. 

(1). The flrst class contains a long list of expo- 
sitions, delivered first as sermons, of many books 
of Scripture. They begin with the Hexaemerxm^ 
or commentary on the Creation. Of thu work 
St. Jerome says, Nuper 8, Am'trosius sic Hexae- 
meron ilHus [^Origenis"] compilavitf %U magis Nip' 
pol'jti sententias BasUiique sequeretur (Ep, 41). 
It is in great part a literal translation from Sk, 
Basil. St. Augustine, as we have seen, was 
interested by the method of interpretation in 
which Ambrose followed Basil, Origen, and Philo 
Judaeus — the method of finding a spiritual or 
mystical meaning latent under the natural or 
historical. But the modem reader, who soon 
wearies of this method in Philo or Origen, is not 
likely to enjoy it in Ambrose. The Hixaemeron 
(6 books) is followed by De Paradi»i\ De Cain H 
AM (2). De Noe et Area, De Abraham (2), Di 
Isaac et Animd, De Bono Mortis^ De Fnga StiecuH, 
De Jacob et Beatd Vita (2), De Joseph Patri- 
archd, De Benedictionibus Patiiarcharum, De EU 
et Jejuniot De Nafntthe Jezraelita, De Tobid, Di 
Tnterpellatione Job et David (4), Apologia Pro- 
phetae Daoid, Apologia altera Propheiae Dand 
Enarratkmet in Paalmm (12), Expotiiio « 


J*ml}wmm cxciiik, ExpoiHio Evangelii $eaMchtm 
Lmoam (1C> 

(2). Th« Mcond cUw contains Dt Officii* 
Minigtrorum (3 books), De Virgtmbut (3\ Dt 
VidWy IH WrqMaU, Eshortatio VirginUatia, 
Ik Lajou VirgimU Contecratae, De Myderiis, De 
Sacramemtit {6% De PoeniUntid (2>» De Fide (5X 
De Spiritm Samio (3% De Incamationit Domi- 
micae Sacramento, Of thes« th« books De Officiia, 
addressed to the clergy (imitated from CiceroX 
and tiiose De Fide^ mentioned above, are the most 

(3). The occasional writings, which are bio- 
graphically the most raloable, are the discourses 
De £xcestu Fratrie tui Satyri (2% De Obiiu 
Valemtmiani Oj$uoiatiOf De Oifitu TKeodoaii Ora- 
tio, and the Epieiln^ 91 in number, with the 
Gtda Comeilii Ajuiieieneie inserted amongst them. 
Various ecclesiastical writings have been attri- 
buted to Ambrose, which critical examination has 
determined to be spurious. [Amurosiaster.] 
Most of these are given in the Benedictine edi- 
ti<m; in that of Migne there is an additional 
appendix, containing some other compositions 
which have borne Ambrose's name, but are either 
manifestly spurious, or have no sufficient title 
to be considered genuine. Some of his genuine 
works appear to have been lost, especially one 
mentioned with high praise by St. Augustine 
(£/>. xxxu 8) as written aguinst those who 
alleged that our Lord had learnt from Plato. 

Of the connexion of St. Ambrose with the 
liturgical arrangement which bears his name, 
we know nothing more than what has been 
quoted above from Paulinus. [See Diet, of Chr. 
Aut, art. LiTUROiEi; comp. Ambrosian Music] 
Ihere are three principal editions of Ambrose's 
work*, that of Lrasmus, the Roman, and the 
Benedictine. Tlie first of these was preceded by 
some earlier tentative publications, between A.D. 
1474 and l.'>06, the most considerable being that 
of Amerbach (Basle) in 1492. Erasmus's edition 
was also published at Basle, by Froben, in 1527. 
He divided the works into 4 tomes, with the 
titles, 1. EthicOy 2. Polemica^ 3. OraiioneSj 
y.ffi-tolaef tt dncionft, 4. Expianatitrncs Vet, et 
Soti Teetamenii, This edition was followed by 
that of Costerius (published by Episcopiu^ at 
BasleX «n^ thst of Gillot (Merlin, PariH). The 
great Roman e<iition was the work of many years* 
Ubour, undertaken by the desire of Popes Pius 
IV. and Pius V., and begun by a monk who 
s/Ycrwards became Pope with the name oi 
Sixtus V. It was published in 5 vols, at Rome, 
u the vears 15i)0, 1, 2, 5. This edition supor- 
•e-Jeii ail others, until the publication of the 
tx(.^llent work of the Benedictines (du Frische 
sn*! W Nourry) at Paris, a.d. 1686 and 1690. A 
•mail revi4««i edition of the l>e Ofiiciis and the 
ffei-aitnenm has been printed in the Bihiiutheca 
Pa*, Erri. Latin. Seiectn (Tauchnitz, Leipsic). 

An elaborate life of St. Ambrose by Baron ius, 
titracted from his Annaletj is prefixed to the 
Roman edition. But this is improved upon by 
the more critical investigations of the Benedtc- 
tine editors, who have laid the basis for all sub- 
•ninent lives. [J. LI. D.] 


AUEX (Hippol. Ifaer. v. 26) [Jusnxcs, Gno<»- 
tkj: (Ixcn. 67, 81) [Mabcl-% Gnost.]. [H.] 


AMETRITAE, the name given by < Praedea- 
tinatus ' (L 77) to a ** sect " who according to 
Philastrius {Haer, 115) followed various philoso- 
phers in believing that ** there are infinite and 
innumerable worlds,*' appealing to apocryphal 
books of (? heathen) prophets. See Oehler't 
notes. [H.] 

rities ; IL Ufe ; 111. Works and style ; IV. Cha^ 
racter and relation to Christianity ; V. Editions, 

L Avthonties,^Th9 maUrials for the life of 
this historian are almost entirely supplied by 
himself. Of the epistles of Libanius, about 20 
are addressed to persons bearing the names of 
Ammianus or Marcellinus, or mentioning one or 
other of them. Of these, all, except the first, of 
those addressed to Ammianus (nos. 215 (?X 230, 
1090, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1543, ed. Wolf.), though 
of very slight importance may be conjectured to 
belong to our subject, as one addressed to Mar- 
cellinus (no. 983) certainly is ; and another to 
Apollinarius and Gemellus, which mentions Am- 
mianus (no. 234 *AiAfitaifhs 6 KoA^t, cf. no. 1151), 
probably refers to him. Two laws in the Theo- 
dosian code of the same year 383 begin, one " Ad 
Ammianum Com. Rer. Priv. ** (C. TJu xi. 30, 
§ 41X the other ** Have Marcelline karissime 
nobis " (/(/. ix. 27, § 5). Godefroy supposes the 
latter to be the historian. On the relation of 
Ammianus and Solinus, which has been variously 
regarded, the last edition of Solinus by Profes- 
sor Mommsen (Berlin, 1864) may be consulted. 
The most striking parallels are Amm. xxii. 15 
and 16, SoL 32, 9-end and 34, 1, on Egypt ; and 
Amm. xxiii. 6, § 85-^8, Sol. 52, 23-28, on 
Pearlc. Mommsen concludes that neither bor- 
rowed from the other, but both, as well as 
Apuleius, from a lost epitome of Pliny and Mela, 
with amplifications added by its unknown com- 
piler. Hence no argument can be deduced as to 
their dates. Priscian quotes both {De mi Partt, 
Orat.\ hence we conclude that they were read in 
the schools of his time (Prise., lib. ix. Marcel- 
linus rerum gestarum quarto decimo ; tanquam 
licentia crudelitati indulta). The Marcellinus 
who wrote the life ofThucydides and the lUyrian 
Marcellinus mentioned by Suidas, are, the first 
probably, the second certainly, difierent persons. 

II. Life, — Ammianus Marcellinus was a Greek 
of Antioch (as is gathered from Lib. Ep. 983), 
and of a good family (ingeuuus, xix. 8, § 6). In 
the early part of his life he must have received a 
good education, but we know nothing of him fur- 
ther till as a young man of |)erha|>s 20 years he 
was attached to the General Ursicinus by the 
order of Constantius. He was with him in A.D. 
353 at Nisibi« and Antioch (xiv. 9, § 1), where 
the cruelty of Gallus had caused a sedition, and 
in the next year at Milan (xiv. 11, § 5). In 355 
he had become one of the imperial b«Kly guard 
(protector domesticusX and followed Ursictuus on 
the hazardous expedition to supernede Silvauus 
in Gaul (xv. 5, § 21, 22). In 357 they were 
summoned to Constantius at Sirmium, and des- 
{latched to the East (xvi. 10, § 21). Wlien Ursi- 
cinus was recalled in 359, supersedeil, and sud- 
denly ordered back again, Ammianus was still 
with him (xviii. 4, § 7, 6, § 5X and returned 
to Amida through Nisibis, where he nearly lust 
his life in saving that of a boy. He was tiien da* 

H 2 



tached on a mission to the satrap of Cordnene, 
and had an opportunity of observing the whole 
barbarian force from a height (zviii. 6, § 20). 
He wa3 present at the disgraceAxl rout near 
Amida, and was one of those who were shut up 
In the town. He describes with great rigour the 
Mcge and pestilence, and his own escape just after 
the capture to Antioch (zix. 1-8). We lose sight 
of him now at the disgrace of Ursidnus, till 
the time of Julian's inrasion of Persia in 363, in 
which and in the retreat under Jorian he took 
part (zxiv., xxv., pass.). After the dirision of the 
empire in 364 he would seem to have remained 
In the East, perhaps in his natire town, where his 
friend Libanius had taken up his permanent abode: 
at any rate he was present there in 371 at the 
punishment of the conspiracy of Theodorus under 
Valens (xxix. 1, § 24% and shared in the general 
terror so fatal to literature in the East, inasmuch 
as all books having the least suspicion of a rela- 
tion to magic were destroyed by their ownera for 
fear of delation (uL 2, § 4). 

We do not know at what time he settled in 
Rome, nor whether he had any office there, as the 
iJentillcation of him with the ** count of the pri- 
vate estate '* is conjectural. One of the epistles 
of Libanius (no. 1150) addressed to Ammianus 
would make him governor of Syria Euphratensis, 
according to Sievers {Leben dea LVxmius, p. 272, 
app. m\\ but this would be before his settlement 
in Rome. The rest are requests for favoui's, 
generally in behalf of his own pupils, or thanks 
for the same. From the same writer's letter to 
Marcellinus cited above (no. 983) we learn that 
he composed his history in the capital, and gave 
public recitations of it book by book with great 
applause. We know neither the date of his birth 
nor death. He was "• adolescens ** in 357 (xvi. 10, 
§ 21, prob. under 28 yeara of age according to Isi- 
dore's definition), and mentions no event later than 
the consulship of Neoterius in 390(xxvi. 5, § 14), 
while he speaks of the Serapeum as still stand- 
ing (xxii. 16, § 12X which was destroyed in 391. 
From a mention of the famine which took place 
m 383 (xiv. 6, § 19) we are able to fix the com- 
position or publication of books xiv.-xxii. between 
the yean 38:)-391. The letter of Libanius (no. 
^83), written in 390 or 391, speaks of the work 
as still in progress, and this must refer to books 
xxiii.-xxxi., of which the date is uncertain, 
though it is probable that they were finished not 
many yeara later. 

111. Works and Style. — The histories of which 
we possess the most important part are the only 
works of this author that we know. They are in 
Latin, and were intended as a continuation of 
Tacitus from the reign of Nerva to the death of 
Valens, but the first 13 books are unfortunately 
lost. The 18 which remain contain the history 
of 25 yeara, 353-378, from the 17th year of Con- 
stantius. Though the narrative of the earlier 
books must have been on a much more contracted 
scale, we have cause to regret their loss, especi- 
ally as the preface would doubtless have told us 
mora of the author and of his general ideas of 
history ; and an account of Constantine from his 
pen would have been only second in value to that 
of Julian. Those that remain, though not a 
eorapleto record of events, are invaluable as the 
aarratives of a man who was both an eye-witnesa 
and an actor in much that he relates, and a per- 
MQ of great cultivation. He claims to have 

striven throughout to tell the truth (xxxi. ad 
fin.), and his account of Julian and his satirical 
description of Roman mannera (so well known 
from Gibbon, chap, xxxi.) prove that he was de« 
terred neither by admiration nor desire of praise. 
No Latin historian except Tacitus pnta us 9% 
much on the level of the age in which he wrote, 
and Ammianus, though less personally interesting 
and less of a politician than Tacitus, is perhapa 
on that account a more faithful narrator. His 
style is that of the period, and is clearer than 
that of the Theodosian code, less exaggerated than 
that of the ]»anegyrists. The fact that he looked 
to immediate recitation may be counted a source 
of gain as well as of loss. He is inflated and re- 
dundant in expression, hanh in construction, full 
of Grsecisms and quotations from Greek authora 
(almost always expressed in LatinX aa well as of 
verbal parallels, allusions to and quotations from 
Cicero, Virgil, Livy, Tacitus, etc. His use of 
" hae volucres " (xviii. 3, § 1 ; cf. Varro, E, U. 
iii. 16, meum erat eas novisse volucres) for bees 
is a striking instance of this habit. His know- 
ledge of ancient history was considerable, and re- 
ferences occur not unfrequently, undentood or 
expressed, to Herodotus and Thucydidea, from 
tlie latter of whom he borrows a good deal (see 
Vales, on xxi. 16, § 12). His obligations to Pliny 
have already been mentioned : that he owes much 
to A. Gellius may also be noticed. The badness 
of his style does not, however, often produce ob- 
scurity, as soon as the reader is used to it, though 
many difficulties arise from the oorruption of the 
text ; nor ara the nferences to other authors, 
the digressions, &c., altogether tedious. His epi- 
grams ai*e sometimes fortunate, as that one on 
the eunuch Eusebius "apud quem si vere dia 
debeat multum Constant ius potuit " (xviii. 4, 
§ 3) ; and generally there is no lack of liveliness 
or interest in the narrative. The reader must, 
however, be on his guard, as in the case of other 
writera of this period, against the tendency to 
exaggerate and to use vague rather than precise 
language, which must be counteracted in Ammi- 
anus as far as possible by the comparison of one 
passage with another. 

IV. Character and relation* to Christianity^'-' 
Ammianus is on% of those ambiguous charactera 
which are not uncommon on the battle-ground 
lietwenn an old and a new belief. We should be 
glad to think that both he and Claudian wera 
Christians, but we are not able to do so. Speaking 
pretty constantly, and without any apparent 
reserve, about religious and theological ques- 
tions, he would have made it plain if he had 
been a Christian. He seems to nare been a re- 
spectable and respected man, living a happy and 
moral life in a time of much social misery and cor^ 
ruption, with a mind apt for details, and strongly 
imbued with the detached thoughts and feeling* 
of the past, juiiging the external actions of his 
contemporaries according to a high moral stan- 
dard, without comprehending the principles 
working in the age itself. His account of JuliaA 
shows both his merits and his defects. It u 
truthful and interesting in a high degree, but 
the author does nut seem to have realised the 
critical importance of his subject in the religious 
history of the world. Libanius underatood it 
better. The fact also that Ammianus chose 
Rome for his residence is significant, aa it was 
the seat of hereditary non-philosophic but cniti- 




fated KeathenUm, and of a more tolerant Chri«- 
tiaaitj. The poet Claudian was there in 388 
(FL l>ezter. Chrcnt^. sub anno) and later : the 
Ikifttorian Victor, who was probably an old ac- 
qoaiotaoce of Ammianus (xxi. 10, § 6), was 
prefect of the city onder Theodosins. Of the 
other heathen prefects he mentions the elder 
SfBunachos (prefect in 364, xxviL 3, § 3^ Frae- 
textAtus (pref. in 367, xxii. 7, § 6 ; xxrii. 0, § 8 ; 
see If aerobe &iticni.)and Oljbrios (pref. in 368, 
xxTtii. 1, § 6, 4^ § 1) with great commendation. 
Of xhit Christian prefects Hypatius, brother of 
the Empress Ensebia, seems to have been his 
friend (xxix. 2, § 9, 16, &c. ; cf. Greg. Nnx., Ep, 
96, ed. Caillan). He does not speak of Graccus, 
the predecessor of Hypatius in 378, who de- 
stroyed the Mithraeum, it would seem at the 
instigation of Damasos (Jerome, Ep, 107, vol. i. 
p. 67 8X uor of the younger Symmachus, the 
eloquent defender of paganism (pref. in 384). 
The direct menti<Hi which he makes of religious 
matters, heathen or Christian, coincides generally 
with our estimate of his character, as a practical 
man of literary tastes and common sense, without 
any »troBg religious convictions. The little that 
be seems to accept is on the authority of learned 
men, and is of a vague nature, such as the identi- 
fication of Mercury with the soul of the world 
(velocior sensus, xri. 5, 5 ; cf. xxr. 4, ^ 14), 
the assignment of a genius to each individual, for 
which varioos texts are quoted (xxi. 14, § 2\ 
and the operations of Nemesis, to whom he gives 
the attributes of Fortune (xiv. 11, § 25 ; xxii. 3, 
I lu). He seems to have been a believer in an 
indefinite theism, under which he included, ac- 
cording to popular notions, a number of subordi- 
nate spirits (substantiales potestates, xxi. 1, $ 8, 
cf. the fint passage about Nemesis), by means of 
which he seeks to explain and to justify the arts 
cf divination, which in other places he notes as 
open to criticism. He is content to accept au- 
gunes and oracles, and the interpretation of 
dreams as existing arts, supported by the autho- 
rity oi anuent names, and consistent with the 
benerolence of the divinitv or the deserts of man- 
kind, and bo more to be despised because of 
mi«n»e or failure than music or grammar. Hence 
he b iftot sparing in relating portents, such as 
ap(«sr in Livy or Tacitus, and though he con- 
demns the recklessness of the prosecutions for 
magic, which were so frequent under Valens, he ac- 
knowledges in some cases the reality of the crime. 
The account already referred to of the trial of the 
eoaspiratpri at the beginning of Book xxix. is 
most iotereating. He generally speaks of Christi- 
saity with respect, sometimes in order to criticise 
the ialariority of those who professed it to their 
CutJi. He says of Constantius ^ that he tainted 
tj;e plaiaoeas and simplicity of the Christian re- 
h|ioa by the admixture of anile superstition/' 
sti foes OB to complain of the number of i>ynods, 
the tamolt of bishops hurrying to and iVo, and 
t^e harden oa the public service (xxi. 16, § 18). 
He epeaka of George of Cappadocia as ** forgetful 
•f his profindon, which counsels nothing but 
vhat in just and gentle, and turning aside to the 
«rocstica of a deUtor ** (xxii. 1 1, $ 5X and a little 
firthar (ib^ 4 ^^\ ^ defines martyrs as those 
* who, balBg urged by force to deviate ttoia their 
letifioB, have boraa torture and punishment, and 
Mad with aBsalUwi faith to a glorious death." 
It takaa qcbmIob, ob dascribing the struggle of 

Damasus and Ursinus, to contrast the pomp and 
luxury of the bishops of Rome with the povertv 
and humilitv of some provincial prelates, which 
"commend them as pure and reverend to the ever- 
lasting deity and his true worshippers " (xxvii. 3, 
§ 12-ld). While he recounts with seeming ap- 
proval Julian's experience that no wild beasts are 
so fatal to men as most Christian sects are to one 
another (xxii. 5, § 4), he twice condemns ia 
strong terms his law that Chiistian professors 
should not teach grammar or rhetoric (xxii. 10, 
§ 7 ; XXV. 4, § 19X and he does not at all seem to 
have shared his predilection for the Jews (xxii. 5, 
§ 5). The following references also may be con- 
sulted as bearing on the history of Christianity. 
Liberius and Athanasius (xv. 7, § 6-10), nuni 
near Amida (xviii. 10, (i 4), Christians accused of 
burning the Temple of Apollo at Antioch (xxiL 
13, ^ 2), Christian priests used as ambassador! 
(xxix. 5, § 15 ; xxxi. 12, § 8). 

V. Editions^ ^c. — The editio princeps was 
issued at Rome 1478, die 7 Junii, per George 
Sachsel et Barth. GoLsch, and edited by A. Sa- 
binus. It is faithfully printed from a very 
faulty MS., and contains only Books xiv.-xxvL 
In 1533 appeared two critical editions, Accursius', 
with the last five books (Aug. Vindob. Otmar ia 
May) and Gfelenius' (Froben, Basel, in June), 
with all but the last book and the last page in 
Book XXX. Since then the most important have 
been, by Lindenbrog, with notes (Hamb. 1609, 
4) ; Henn Valois (Fans, Camusat, 1636, 4), tha 
chief authority, in which the excerpta quoted a» 
Anon. Valesii were first added ; re-editod by hb 
brother Adrian (Par. Dexallier, 1681, f.); Jac 
Gronovius, cum notis varr. (Lug. Bat. 1693, f.); 
G. A. Ernesti, a text with glossary (Leipz. 1773, 
8) ; and the most complete by J. A. Wagner and 
C. G. A. Erfurdt (Leipz. 1808, iii. 8), but wanting 
a revision of the text. A new edition of the text 
— which was much wanted — has been edited br 


Eyssenhardt, 1871. A new commentary is also 
to be desired. The appendix B B in Sievers' 
Ld^en dci Zi^anius (Berlin, 1868, 8) may be con- 
sulted further with respect to the relations of 
Ammianus with him. [J. W.j 

AMBION. (1) Bishop of Adrianople, in 
Thrace, was an Egyptian by birth. He attended 
the synod held at Constantinople a.d. 394 to 
settle the rival claims of Agapius and Bagadiut 
to the see of Bostra (Labbe, Cvncil. ii. 1151), and 
was again at Constantinople with Antoninus of 
Ephesus and other Asiatic prelates in Sept. 399. 
He was a warm friend of Chrysostom (Pallad. 
iJial. de Chrya. Vita). 

(2) Bishop of Laodicea ic«iravft^Fif, in Pisidia, 
who early in A.D. 404, took part in thn council 
by which Chrysostom was de{>osed. He joiuod 
Leontius and his party in urgiug the application 
of the Antiochene canon, which deprived a de- 
posed bishop returning without the authority 
of a synod, and, with Acacius of Beroea, de- 
manded of the vacillating emperor that it should 
be put in force against Chrysostom (Pulhid. p. 
78 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 28). 

(8) Bishop of Pklusiuii, an enemy of Chry- 
sostom, charged by Palladius with having em- 
ployed threats and bribes with the soldiers who 
were conducting Chrysostom's friendn. Palladins, 
Demetrius, &c into exile, to secure their maltreat- 
ment (Pallad. p. 200). laidora of Pclaaium, how- 


tver, though a friend of Chrjsottom, ttrlef him were protected al^o br the farour ot the Em- 

4 AoiSifioff Koi dtiat ff9^las ffiTA««t. [£. V.] press Eudoxia (Soz. riii. 13X and even satisfied 

, -_._^«- , , ve.^.t/.. * Epiphnniiw of Salatnis, who came to Constan- 

AMMON (or Amos). Saint, the founder of ^j ,^ .^ ^^e instigation of Theophilu* to con- 

the celebrated settlement of coenobites and her- ^.^ ^^^^ of heresT (riii. 15). At the Svnod 

mit^ on and near Mens Nitna (Ruff. deMtm. 3U) ; u ^ Quercum," which was held on the arrival ot 

he IS often styled the ** father ot Lgyptian menus- xheophilus, they were persuaded to submit to 

ticisni. He was contemporary with St. Antony, ^^^ Ammonius being ill at the time. He died 

and filled the same place m Lower Egypt as ^h^^ly afterwards. Theophilus is said to hare 

Antony in the Thebaid. Being left an orphan by ^ ^ ^^ ^^^ ^f y^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ,,3^^ ^^^^ 

his parents, wealthy people near Alexandria, he ^j^^^ Ammonius was one of the hoHert monks oi 

was torc«l by his uncle to marnr. But on the ^u time (viii. 17). Perhaps this Ammonius is 

wedding-day he persuaded his bnde to Uke a the author of the /nstiYitfioiur* Xscrtfcof, of which 

TOW of celibacy, and for eighteen y«rs they twentv-two chapters are extant (Umbec. iPiWw/A. 

lived together as brother and sister: afterwards y{ndJh \y 15SY. 

.with her consent he withdrew to Nitria, and ^j) An 'Egyptian bishop in the 4th centurv. 

fu ?i *^Jr* V*" r *'''*^ 11"*^ *"" "^1^* ^T! V^ r ^t the age^if 17 he wL induced br hearing 

(Pall. Ifist LauM, 8). A great multitude of , ^^^^^ ^ Athanasius to become' a monk, 

lealous disciples soon gathered round him ; so ^^^ ^^^. '^^ ^ ^ ^^^^ baptized ; and 

that Palladius not many years later found about ^^.^ to Tabema. Al\er passing two vears 

five thousand monks, some living quite alone, ^j^^^ „^j^^ Theodoru^ and fourteen at Nitna 

^me with one or more companions; while six ^q^ ,^^ r^^ y p ^ -^ j^^ ^^ „ ^^^^ 

hundred advance.! in holiness (TtXcto*) dwelt )^^^^^ ^^^jj; apj^^^tl v made bishop bv Athana- 

apart from the rest in more complete isolation .r.^/AAU -^ \r>- -jiuiv — j k— :-i.Li u- n 

Elenrchia, in the fourth century. Having been 

AMMOy lUS, a presbyter, said by • Praedes- * ™?*»^ »»« ^ »^Je bishop by Alexander (Ath. 

tinatu^ ' to have written asr-iinst the Eunomians. <*!^ ^^«'<^- 21^ od M<m. 30o). He was sent with 

Prubablv not the Alexandrine writer of the 5th ^"pion and other bishops on an embassy 

century; but an imaginary person. [H.] 7»'^ ^>enlplon from Athanasius to Constantius 

^ ^ ^ L J ^j^^jj ^ ^„,^ -210; Soz. HiMt. iv. 9); was 

AMMOXIUS. (1) A dlsdple of Pambo, and banished shortly afterwards by the Ariaas (Ath. 

one ot' the must celebrated of the monks of Nitria. Mi Mun. 'iOhX and returned in 362, in whicn 

iWing of unusual stature, he and his brothers year he was present at the Councils of Alexan- 

Dio<4<onis. EusehiiLs and Euthvuiiu^i were called dria (Ath. ad Ant. 615, 619), and of Sanlica 

the Till Brothers (Soz. Hist. viii. 12V Ammo- (Ath. c. Ar. l.VJ). 

nius himself was distinguished by the epithet (4) A solitary, near Canopus in the fourth 
voperr^f (Niceph. Hist, xi. 37) in consequence of century. In the persecution by Valens he Hed 
having cut off one of his ears to escape being to Palestine, and thence to ^nai. There he 
made a bishop (Pall. Hist. Laus. 12). In his was an eye-witness of the devastation of the 
vouth he accompanied St. Athanasius to Rome, monasteries and hermitages by the Saracens, 
but could not be induced to vi«it any of the Combetis supposes him on returning to li^^pt to 
sights there, except the basilica of St. Peter and have been ordained jmsbyter by Peter, and thus 
St. Paul (Soc. Hist. iv. 23; Pall. 12). He was identities him with the Ammonius m.irtvred with 
A learned man. and could repeat, it is said, the that bishop (Eus. Hist. viii. 13). l)e thence 
Old and New Testament by heart, as well as escaped to Memphis, where he made himself a 
passages from Origen am tot her fat hers (Pall. 12). i-ell. His narrative, in which he mentions also 
He never tasted cooked food (Pall. 12X and t're- a similar devastation at the same time at Raithi, 
quently gave up his cell to strangers, building is edited in Greek with Latin translation by 
himself .mother without a word (Ku£ 23.) He Combetis {Xti. M'.iri, Triumphi y. 88). Cave 
was ban)she«l to Dincaesiirea in the persecution and Ullemont give conclusive reasons against 
under Valens (Pall. 117). After being for some Combetis, who assigns an earlier date for sup- 
time high in favour with Theophilus of Alexan- (Kwing the Peter spoken of in this narrative to 
dria, he and his brothers were accused by him be the successor of Athanasius {ct Soc. Hist. iv. 
of Origottism. Sozomea ainl Nicephorus ascribe 3ii ; Soz. Hist. vi. 38)b [L G. S.] 
the accucition to animositv on the (wrt 

•f Theophilus; the former because' they had in- AMMONIUS 8ACCA&. Next to nothing 

Icrfered on behalf of Isidorus {Hist. viii. 12X is known of thU (ihilosopher. That he obtained 

the latter because they had reproved the bishop his name of Saccas ( = a'ajrKo^tfp««) from having 

f»r \mmg too Mcalar'(£fiii<: xiii. 10). Socrates been a porter in his youth, is atfirmcd by Suidas 

vpUiw tho acewatioB as an attempt to divert ( under Orijemn ) and Ammianns MarccUinut 

fron hinsolf the odium which he had incurred (xxii. 528 V He was a native of Alexandria^ 

an aa Oriipeaiit (i/ist. vL 7). Jerome, however. Porphyry asserts that he was bom of Christian 

rs the SfOeiiMtion aieritcd (£/jl ad Atex.), parenU, ami rvtumcd to the heathen religioa. 

frm Cm* tha brothcn took reftige first Eusebius {Hsi. Led. vi. 19, 7) denies the latter 

itiBt (Kieapk ifttt. ziiL 11) and after- statement, but it would appear most DrobaUc 

at CiiiHaliainila, where th^ were well that Eusebius confounded him with another Am- 

'^ ^ Gkvpartia (viiL 13^ Then thay moaiua^ the aatbar of a Diataasaroo, atill cztaat. 


That the founder of the Alexandrian school of 
philosophr (for inch Ammonias Saccas was) 
should hare been at the same time a Christian, 
though not impossible, seems hardly likelj. More- 
orer, the Ammonias of Easebias wrote books ; 
whereas, according to both Longinos and Por* 
phrrr. Ammonias Saccas wrote none. The most 
iDtimate pupils of Ammonias Saccas were Hev^n- 
tins, Origen, and Plotinus; according to For- 
phTry, he boand them by a promise not to reveal 
sis doctrines. This promise was broken, first by 
Hcreanius, next by Origen. This story is re- 
fvded by Zeller (Die I'kUotopfm der Oriechen, 
r. H99) as apocryphal, and as inrented to assi- 
milate Ammonias to Pythagoras. The Origen 
■bove mentioned was a pagan ; but the cele> 
krated Christian of that name is also said to 
hare listened to the lectures of Ammonius (Eu- 
sebius, /L c). Plotinus is said to hare been most 
strongly impressed with his first hearing of Am- 
monias, and to have cried out, *' This is the man 
I was looking for ! " (roirroy iihrQvv) ader which 
he remained his constant friend till the death of 
the elder philosopher. Of the other disciples of 
Ammonias are OMntioned the celebrated Longinus, 
Heracles the Christian, Olympius, and Antonius. 
It is pohsible, however, that the Christians Origen 
and Heracles may have been the disciples of that 
Ammooius whom Eusebius confounds with Am- 
nonios Saccas, and who was himself a Christian ; 
bat thkjt cannot be certainly known. We may 
guess something concerning the philosophy of 
Ammonias Saccas from the fact that Plotinus 
was his popil. For the rest, Hierocles {ap. Pho- 
tios) affirms that his aim was to reconcile the 
philoeopbiea of Plato and Aristotle. From this 
very probable account he would appear to have 
eembined mysticism and eclecticism. Nemesius, 
a bishop and a Neoplatonist of the close of the 
4th centary, cites two passages, one of which he 
declares to contain the views of Numenius and 
Ammonias, the other he attributes to Ammonius 
alone. They concern the nature of the soul and 
its relation to the body. From Nemesius* words 
they a|^>ear to have been merely the traditional 
views of Ammonias, not any actual written words 
ef hk> ; and hence, as Zeller says, their authen- 
tiutv must be considered doubtful, and not the 
kss from their very close resemblance to the 
views of Plotinus ; for it is hardly likely that 
Plotinas should have reproduced Ammonius with 
ss little variation. The life and philosophy of 
immoaius have been discussed by Vaeherot, 
Hi$t. de CEcvie dAUx, i. H42; Jules Simon, 
Hut. dt CKctiU dAUx. i. 204; Dehaut in his 
historical essay on the life and teaching of our 
philosopher, and Zeller in his 1 hUoaophie der 
Griet^m, who also mentions other writers on 

[J. R. M.] 



AMOEXUS PRUDENTIU8, the supposed 
•atiier of an Enchiridion or Manual of the Old 
■ftd New Teats., called also Dittochaeon or Dip- 
tvek«B, la 196 Latin hexameters, which are 
46rilcd into 49 Utrastichs, descriptive of the 
Miaclpal events and characters of Scripture. 
koChiag is known of him except his name, which 
was fbrmerly eonftised with that of Aur. Cle- 
■■■• PmdeBtiva, among whose poems the Enchi- 
rtttea b printed In the older editions, and of 
the abore dtaignation is considered by 
to hKW9 beta a coaplimentary epithet. 

Sichard, who discovered the name Amoenus pre- 
fixed to the work in a Strasbourg MS., was the 
first to point out the error in his Scholia on Pru- 
dentius (Basil., 1537X and toassigpi an independ- 
ent existence to Prudentius Amoenus. Although 
but little weight can be allowed to arguments 
derived from the supposed inferiority of the 
poem to the known works of Prudentius, or to 
the silence of that poet respecting it when enu- 
merating his other works {Praef.% it would seem 
that Gennadius, on whose authority the manual 
was long attributed to Prudentius, is alluding 
to a different and more substantial work (/>« 
Fir. lUustr, c. 13). Amoenus is classed by Fabri- 
cius and similar writers among the poets of the 
5th century, and is supposed by them to have 
been, like Clemens, a native of Spain. The 
Enchiridion was first printed as the work of 
Prudentius Amoenus, in the Fabrician Collection 
(Basil., ' 562). Two other compositions are as- 
cribed to the same author ; a short hexameter 
fragment, entitled Aegy}4iu8 Deum Martini ta- 
vocant tempestatis pericuium effwjit ; and an 
acrostich ode, In Leontium epiicopum Burdiga- 
tensi ecclesiae redditumj but upon what autho- 
rity does not appear. (Migne, Patrol,^ vol. Ixi.) 

[E. M. Y.] 

AMOS, bishop of Jerusalem (called by 
Nicephorus Neamus), succeeded Joha •III. as 
57th bishop, A.D. 594. According to Baronius, 
$ub ann., who quotes Sophronius, Prat. Spirit. 
c. 149, he had previously been the abbot of a 
Syrian monastery. A letter of Gregory the 
Great to Amos is extant (lib. vii. Ep. 7, sub 
indict i.), charging him to withhold communion 
with, and, if possible, to apprehend and send 
back to Rome a runaway acolyte named Peter. 
He was succeeded by Isaac a.d.'601. [E. V.] 

AMPHILOCHIUS (8T.X archbishop of 


1. Sources of informcdion. Of this great 
Catholic leader, who was regarded by his con- 
temporaries as the foremost man in the Eastern 
Church after his friends Basil of Oiesarea and 
Gregory of Nazianzus, very scanty information 
remains. The works ascribed to him are mostly 
spurious : and the life (Migne, Patr, Oraec 
xxxix. p. 14) is a later fiction, presenting the 
usual features of monkish hagiologies and wholly 
untrustworthy as a biographical record. The 
following references to the writings of his two 
great friends and contemporaries contain nearly 
all that is known of him and his family : Greg. 
Naz. Epist. 9, 13, 22-28, 62, 63, 171, 184, 
Test. ii. p. 203 sq., Carm. ii. pp. 1030, 1068, 
1116-1120, 1148-1152,; Basil. Epist. 150, 161, 
163, 176, 188, 190, [191], 199-202, 217, 218, 
231-236, 248, de Spir. Sanct. | 1 sq., § 79. The 
references here and throughout this article 
are to the Benedictine edition of Gregory com- 
pleted by Caillau (Paris, 1840), and to Garnier's 
edition of Basil (Paris, 1730). Occasional no- 
tices which occur in other writers, such as 
Jerome, Theodoret, &c., will be given in their 
proper places. Of modern biographies Tille- 
mont's alone deserves special mention {Meinaires 
ix. p. 617 sq., with the notes ib. p. 744 sq.). To 
this should be added the account of hi> family 
relations in the Benedictine life of Gregory, and 
the portions of Qamier*s life of Basil relating to 



him. On the works genoine or sparioui which 
h«ar the name of Amphilochios, see Fabric Btblf 
Oraec. viii, p. 373 sq., Tiliemont, ix. p. 745 sq. 
Thej are included in Qalland. Bihl, Vet, Pair, rii. 
p. 457 sq^ and in Migne's Pair. Oraec, zxxix, 
with tht exception of the lambice to Seieucus 


which appear in the editions of Gregory Naslaih 
zen {e.g. Caiilau, ii. p. 1088). 

2. Parentage and connexions. Amphilochiut 
appears to hare been a first cousin of Gregory 
Nazianzen, as the following genealogical table 
will show :— 


PbiltatiQs— Gon/ema 

, ' ^1 

Ampbilocfafos «> Livia Gregorios — Honma 

fi. AxFHiLQGHius Eopbemios 

This oonsinship depends on the identification of 
Philtatius the maternal grandfather of Gregory 
iCarm. ii. p. 1146) with Philtatius the father of 
the elder Amphilochius (ib, p. 1150). The iden- 
tification is confirmed by the fitct that the two 
Gorgonias are thus brought into connexion as 
grandmother and granddaughter; and though 
Gregory never distinctly calls Amphiiochius his 
cousin, yet the relationship seems to be implied 
in occasional expressions scattered through his 
writings (see Greg. Op, i. p. xliy sq.). Amphi- 
lochius, the father, was a Cappadocian, a native of 
the small town of Diocaesarea (either identical 
with or close to Nazianzus), of which he was the 

Eride. He was a forensic pleader and attained to 
igh eminence in his profession. To his friends he 
afibrded generous and ready help, and seems to 
have been as amiable in private life as he was 
famous at the bar. The Graces and the Muses,* 
wrote his nephew, united in him. He lived to see 
his son a bishop, and died in advanced age. Among 
the poems of Gregory ore several touching epi- 
taphs on his uncle, from which these facts are 
gathered (ii. p. 1148-1150). He had himself 
learnt the use of language from his uncle, 
and in celebrating his memory he was fulfilling 
a debt of gratitude and returning like for like 
(A((79f \6yoif . . . iitnrixcL(>t^6tit¥ot). Gn the other 
hand Livia, the mother of Amphilochius, died 
in the prime of life, *' still bright with the 
bloom of youth.'* Her gentleness and her 
wisdom were alike remarkable. At her death 
she left three children, two sons and a daughter, 
with their father Amphilochius, to mourn her 
loss (»5. pp. 1116, 1118). The two sons, Euphe- 
mins and Amphilochius, were devotedly attached 
to each other, ** a holy pair, one soul, two bodies, 
in all things brothers, in blood, in renown, in 
wisdom . . . bright stars shining conspicuous 
among all the Cappadocians." But ** envy cast 
her fell glance on them both." Death carried off 
Euphemius in the bloom of youth on the eve of 
his nuptials, and left but ** half of Amphilochius." 
He appears from his cousin's account to have 
been singularly handsome, amiable, and gifted 
in all ways. Gregory compares him to the 
lightning Hash, dazzling with its brilliancy 
but quenched in a moment (i&. pp. 1118, 1120). 
The si&ter of Amphilochius, whose name appears 
to have been Theodosia,^ survived many years, 

* XapiTCf MovtroMTt ntfiiyfitvai. Tb^re can be no 
donbt that the ruperKiiption uf this ptiom (ii. p. libit) 
ought (o be read Etf 'A^^dxtor oAAo (for oAAorX 

k Gregory calls ber Ocou Sovit (p. \0%s\ tbe nearest 
approach to her name which his metre allows. Tbe name 
^oUaxt occurs In Boeckb, In$cr. 9607. 

Theoaotia 8.QBaGORn7t OMsarios 


and earned the gratitude of her generation as 
the instructress of the famous St. Olympins. 
[Olympias.] She was a living pattern to hei 
pupil in every word and deed (i6. p. 1068). 

3. Early life. Whether Amphilochius, like 
his father, was a native of Diocaesarea, does not 
appear. The language of Basil {Epist, 161) 
might seem rather to imply that he was born 
and lived in Basil's own town, Caesarea. At all 
events, whether owing to distance or from other 
reasons, Gregory expresses regret that he did not 
see much of Amphilochius during his earlier 
years {Epist. 1:0> Their intimate friendship 
commenced at a later date. Amphilochius, lika 
many other eminent Christian fathers, was 
educated for the bar. The letters of his cousin 
imply that he carried on his profession at 
Constantinople. It was apparently during his 
residence there that Gregory writes to recom- 
mend two friends, Euthalius {Epist. 9) and 
Nicobulus {Epist. 13), to his care.* The former 

j letter seems to have been written not long at^er 
the year 362, and the latter about 365. What 
was the age of Amphilochius at this time 
we do not know ; but as Basil and Gregory, 
who were born about the year 329, both 
speak of him as their " son " (Basil. Epist, 
176, Greg. Naz. Epist. 22, 23, 184), he must 
have been somewhat younger than either, and 
therefore still a very young man. This agrees 
with the next incident recorded of him. About 
the year 369 he appeal's to have got into trouble 
about money matters, having allied himself to a 
knave through his inexperience and confiding 
disposition. What the nature of the transaction 
was does not appear ; but Gregory writes on hit 
cousin's behalf to three persons of high station 
and infiuence at Constantinople^, Sophronius, 
Caesarius, and Themistius, asking them to give 
him their advice and aid {Epist. 22, 23, 24). 
The last mentioned, the famous orator, though 
not a Christian, was a friend of the elder Am- 
philochius ; and on this ground Gregory appeals 
to him to protect the son, ** my Amphilochius," 
as he calls him, adding that he is such as not 
to disgrace either his parentage or their friend- 

4. Retirement and dedication to God. It is 
not improbable that this trouble weaned Amphi- 
lochius from his worldly pursuits and turned 
his thoughts inward. At all events we trace 
somewhere about this time a complete change in 

* It is not always clear whr-ther a letter ia addreraed to 
the elder or tbe younger Amphilocbias. In such cases 
the view which seems tbe more probable has been sUenilj 


i* mode of life. He has abandoDed bis pro- 
ion, and is living in retirement at Ozizala, 
deroting himself apparently to religious ex- 
ercises and to the care of his aged father. His 
eottftin Gregory appears to have been mainly 
instrumental in bringing about this change. 
At least he says with honest pri le, that " to- 
gether with the pure Thecla *^^ he had ** sent 
Amphilochius to God" {Op, ii. p. 1068); an 
expresaion which seems to refer rather to this 
retirement and self-dedication of Amphilochius 
than to his later elevation to the episcopate. 
And now his closer friendship with Basil and 
Gregory begins. Ozizala was situated not far 
from Nazianzus, for Gregory's correspondence 
implies that they were near neighbours. On 
one occasion Gregory, who is expecting a visit 
from Ba^il, writes playfully to Amphilochius 
asking him to send a stock of herbs in which 
Ozizala, otherwise barren, abounded, to regale 
their common friend ; and on receiving what he 
affects to consider a very niggardly quantity, 
threatens to cut off his supply of com {Epiat, 25, 
26, 27)b A letter of Basil, apparently belonging 
to this period, is of a graver cast. He writes 
in the name of one Heraclidas, who, like 
Amphilochius, had renounced the profession of 
the bar and devoted himself to a religious life. 
Heraclidas excuses himself from joining Amphi- 
lochius, being lodged in a large hospital (arr«»- 
XOTpo^«7or) recently erected by Basil near 
CacMrea, where he enjoys the constant instruc- 
tions of the bishop. He urges Amphilochius to 
obtain leave from his father to visit Caesarea 
and profit by the teaching and example of the 
same instructor. Basil's great topic, he savs, is 
the abandonment of all worldly riches {kjktt. 
l.M)). Thin letter was written in the year 372 
or yiS (see Gamier's Basil. Op. iii. p. czxxiv). 

5. t.'pi$copnt€. This invitation to Caesarea 
appears to have been promptly accepted, and 
was fraught with immediate and important con- 
sequences. It does not appear that at the time 
of Bosirs letter Amphilochius was even or- 
dained ; vet at the very beginning of the year 
374 we find him occupying the important see of 
Iconium. This sudtleu elevation has a parallel 
in bis contemporary, Ambrose of Milan, who 
was nominated to the see while only a catechu- 
men. Yet at this time Amphilochius can hanily 
have been more than about 35 yenrs of age. 
It is no surprise therefore to find that he 
andertook this important office with great re- 
luctance. AmphiKn'hius had fled from him, 
writes Basil in a congratulatory letter, but had 
b^en caught in the inevitable me>>hes of grace 
aD<l dmg;;ed into the heart of Pisidia. He 
might well say with David, '' Whither shall I 
dee then from Thy presence ?" His native 
cuuntry had lost him, but a neighbouring pro- 
vmce had found him {Kpist. 161). It would 
thus appear that Basil had destined him for 
sAine office in the Cappadocian Church. But 
however this may be, it was evidently the 
writer's influence, exerted in some way or other, 
wtiich secured him for the more important 
puaitton. The elder Amphilochius, thus de- 



< This senos to bf^ the Mine Tb^Uwiib whom Gregory 
risrwherc correspoods. Tb« InierpreUUon whkh refenk 
tht rsp wa ion u» tbe motuwitery of S. Thecla, wLiiber 
Grc^irj fiiireill hss Usa to recommend IL 

prived of his son's care in his old age, com- 
plained of the cruelty of Gregory, through whom 
he had been taken away. Gregory, who at this 
moment was mourning the death of his own 
father, writes in reply to defend himself {Ejnst. 
63). The loss of Amphilochius, his good coun- 
sellor, the stay and the partner of his religious 
life, would be felt by no one, he says, more than 
by himself : nor indeed was he the offender ; 
but, to tell the truth, he had himself been 
overpowered by the strong will of a common 
friend {^/las rohs o68iy itZtKovrras &AX', si Sci 
ri^ri$h s/wsir, rk ttra rvpainffi$4inat (nrh rw 
KQiv&v ^iXttvy. When we remember the cir- 
cumstances of Gregory's own life, we can hardly 
doubt that he here alludes to the iron will of 
his friend Basil, to whose fatal influence he 
himself was forced to succumb at a great crisis. 
And we learn from one of Basil's own letter* 
that he did not lack the opportunity which this 
appointment implies. A few months before this 
time Faustinus, bishop of Iconium, had died, 
and the Iconians applied tu the bishop of CaesarM 
to recommend them a successor (Basil. Epid, 
138). Why there should have been this delay 
we do not know ; but it is impossible not to 
connect this application to Basil with the ulti- 
mate appointment of Amphilochius, the allusion 
in Gregory's letter forming a connecting-link 
between the two. 

From this time forward till his death, which 
happened about five years afterwards, Basil 
holds dose and affectionate intercourse with 
Amphilochius, communicating with him again 
and again by letter, and receiving from him 
frequent visits. The first of these visits took 
place soon aA«r his consecration, about Easter 
374, and was somewhat protracted. His minis- 
trations on this occasion made a deep impression 
on the people of Caesarea, who ader his depar- 
ture lont;ed to see and to hear him again {Epist. 
163, 176). 

This, however, was not usually the season 
which he preferred for his visits. The great 
annual festival at Caesarea was the celebration 
of Eupsychius and other martyrs in September. 
A few days earlier was the annivei-sary of 
Basil's poor-hospital {Epist. 94), which had a 
si)ecial interest for Amphilochius as the place 
where he, with his friend Heraclidas, had lodged 
at the most momentous crisis of their lives, and 
which was connected with their most solemn 
thoughts. For this reason he seems to have 
chosen the autumn for his visits to his spiritual 
father. It was probably on the earliest of these 
annual visits, a.d. 374 (seeGarnier, Op. iii. p. cxl.), 
that Amphilochius urged Basil to clear up all 
doubt re^pecting his doctrine of the Holy Spirit 
by writing a treatise on tbe subject. This was the 
otrcasion of Babil's extant work, de Spiritu Snnrto 
(see § IX which, when completed, was doilicated 
to the petitioner himself and sent to him en- 
grossed on vellum {Epist. 231). During this 
and the following Basil likewise addresses to 
Amphilochius his three Cifumictd I^tfrs {Epist, 
188, 199, 217), to solve some questions relating 
to ecclesiasticid order, which the bishop of 
Iconium had pro{K)undcd to him. At this same 
period also we find Amphilochius arrani^iug tho 
ecx'losiastical affairs of Isauria {Epist. 190), Ly- 
caonia {Epiat, 200), and Lycia {Epist, 218X 
nnder the direction of BaaiL He is also Invitod 



bj Basil to asflist in the administrttioii of his 
own diocese of Oaeaarea, which has become too 
great a burden for him, prostrated as he now is 
bj a succession of maladies {Epist, 200, 201). 
Tlie affectionate confidence which the great man 
—strong as erer in the strength of an unbending 
will, but weak through physical infirmity — 
reposes in his younger friend, is a powerful 
te:»timony to the character and influence of 
Amphilochius, of whom otherwise so little is 

After the death of Basil, the slender thread by 
which we trace the career of Amphilochius is 
taken up in the correspondence of Gregory. 
Gregory writes with equal affection and esteem, 
and with more tenderness than Basil. He has 
been ill, and he speaks of Amphilochius as having 
helped to work his cure. Sleeping and waking, 
he has him ever in his mind. He mentions the 
many letters which he hid received from Am- 
philochius (jivpidmis ypd<fm¥\ and which have 
called forth harmonies from his soul, as the 
plectrum strikes music out of the lyre {Epitt. 

The last of Gregory's letters to Amphilochius 
(Epigt. 184) seems to have been written about 
the year 383. Not long before (a.d. 381) Am- 
philochius had been present with his friend at 
the Council of Constantinople, and had sub- 
scribed to the creed there sanctioned, as chief 
pastor of the Lycaonian Church, at the head of 
twelve other bishops (Labb. Cone. ii. p. 1135, 
ed. Coleti). At this council a metropolitan 
authority was confirmed to, rather than con- 
ferred on, his see of Iconium ; for we find it 
occupying this position even before his election 
to the episcopate. During this sojourn at Con- 
stantinople he signs his name as first witness to 
Gregory's will (Greg. Op, ii. p. 204-), in which the 
testator leaves directions to restore to his most 
reverend son the bishop Amphilochius the pur- 
ohase-money of an estate at Canotala (>6. p. 203). 
It was probably on this occasion also that Amphi- 
lochius fell in with Jerome and read to him a 
book which he had written on the Holy Spirit 
(Hieron. (U Vir. Hi, 133X as the great Latin 
&ther is known to have paid a visit to Gregory 
Nazianzen at this time (Hieron. Op: xi. 65 sq., 
ed. Vallarsi). 

About two years later must be placed the 
well-known incident in which the seal of Am- 
philochius against the Arians appears (Theodt. 
/f. E. V. 16).« Obtaiiyng an audience of Theo- 
dosius, he saluted the emperor himself with the 
usual marks of respect, but paid no attention to 
his son Arcadius, who had recently (Kcwarf) 
been created Augustus and was present at the 
interview. Theodosius, indignant at this slight, 
demanded an explanation. ^^Sire," said the 
bishop, **any disrespect shown to your son 
arouses your displeasure. Be assured therefore, 
that the Lord of the universe abhorreth those 
who are ungrateful towards His Son, their Sa- 
viour and Benefactor.** The emperor, adds 
Theodoret, immediately issued an edict prohibit- 
ing the meetings of the heretics. As Arcadius 

• Sosomen (vli. 6) tells the story, but without irlving 
the name of the bi^bopi He describes htm as " sn old man, 
a priest of an obscure city, irimple and inexperienced in 
tJbin." This descripttoD is as unlike Amphilochius as it 
OPnU poaribiy bck 


WM created Augustus in the beginning of the 
year 383 (Clinton Fast, Bom. i. p. 504), and as 
Theodosius issued his edict against the Euno- 
mians, Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarians in 
September of the same year (Jb. p. 507), the date 
is accurately ascertained (see Tillem. Mvm, EccL 
vi. pp. 627 sq., 802). 

In this same year (383) also we find Amphi- 
lochius taking energetic measures against here- 
tics of a different stamp. He presided over a 
synod of twenty-five bishops assembled at Sida in 
Pamphylia, in which the Messalians [Mesbalians] 
were condemned, and his energy seems to have 
instigated the religious crusade which led to the 
extirpation of this heresy (Photius Bibi. 52, 
Theodt. Ecd, Hiat. iv. 10 ; comp. Labb. Cone, ii. 
1209, ed. Coleti). 

The date of Amphilochius' death is uncertain. 
When Jerome wrote the work quoted above, he 
was still living (A.D. 392) ; and two years later 
(a.d. 394) his name occurs among the bishops 
present at a synod held at Constantinople, when 
.the new basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul was 
dedicated (Labb. Cone. ii. 1378, ed. Coleti). On 
the other hand he is not mentioned in connection 
with the troubles of St. Chrysostom (a.d. 403 
sq.) ; and as so important a person could hardly 
have failed to take part in the controversy, it is 
a fairly safe assumption that he was no longer 
living. The martyrologies have made Amphi- 
lochius survive to a very advanced age, but he 
probably died in middle life. His day is given as 
Nov. 23 in both Greek and Latin calendars. 

6. Works. The genuine works of Amphi- 
lochius, still extant, are very scanty. 

(1) Iambi ad Seieucum. An iambic poem 
addressed to Seleucus, the grandson of Trajanus 
(Tillemont, ix. p. 747X and nephew of St. Olym- 
pias. Its object is to instruct the young num 
in a godly life and to deter him from the pre- 
vailing vices of the age. Its chief present value 
however consists in the list of Canonical Scrip- 
tures with which it closes (see Westcott, Canon, 
pp. 396, 497). On the strength of a note added 
by some scholiast (ravra ioKtt fioi rod S4oK6yov 
rvyx^ptuf ^p§¥6tt ^s itapii *Afi^i\oxiov ypa- 
^crro, i.e. they seem to accord with the mind 
of Gregory the Divine, and to have been written 
by him in the name of Amphilochius) this poem 
has been assigned by many editors to Gregory 
Nazianxen and generally appears among his 
works. Internal and external evidence alike art 
against this hypothesis. It is attributed to 
Amphilochius in the MSS., and referred to as 
his by Cosmas Indie, vii. (ii. p. 292, Montf.X 
and 2U)naras in Can. xxvii. Cone. Carth. (Beve- 
reg. Pand. Can, ii. p. 549); while it betrays 
another hand than Gregory's, as well in the 
style and versification as in the list of Canonical 
Scriptures (see Tillemont, ix. p. 746 ; Galland. BibL 
vii. p. xi). This poem is included in Corobefis 
(p. 116 sq.), but not in Migne. It may be found 
in most editions of Gregory Nazianzen. 

(2) Epistoh Synodica (Migne, p. 94), on the 
Macedonian heresy. Its object is to explain why 
the Nicene fathers did not dwell on the doctrine 
of the Spirit, and to justify the ordinary form 
of the doxology. It is entitled 'Afi^iXox^l' 
BatrlKuot in one MS., but was certainly not 
written by Basil, who indeed is mentioned in 
the body of the letter. It was first published 
by Cotelier, Mon, Ecd, \L p. 99 sq. 


nn^-aMHli, pr tt rr tJ In ThMdont, Dm 

Amb (I) UtMonrMa 

A Isrge ] 

r. 36, Luk« ii. 53, 

. (ii) Lctten to Scltncoi 
(tba mm* to whom Ihi Unbio >n uidKucd), 
la PiDchnriiu dtuan of Sida, to th« people of 
Sfvln, all on dogmatic aabjects. (iii) CoBln- 
nikial and other ttvtbo ; l g. Agaiiul tki 
Ariam*, (M tlu S/mnauM Wrilmgi tucd by tht 
fftrtlia. Ok Itmah, On iht Qmtrabrm occordiHg 
M Ot tlah. On a* Son Ihi WortL It ii itrnoge 
that IM (tagnwDt b quoted (mm the work On 
thf Holg ^lirit, H-hich Ampbitochliu read to 
Jemmr (eee abort). 

BetidH Iheie genalne worki, Combefii alu 
eij;ht diwoaraee be«i ' 



TillniiBBt, p. 747). Another, 
ptmltctmltn Ik^ waa publlihed b; Mxtlhul 
(_Ortyor. ThtaaS. ArcXirp. i. Oral. fc. Motquae, 
177S; MaMigH. PL 119); hat thl> iilio beloDgi 
probabiT to the ume categorr. A Life of BaiU 
ud a Ltft q^ Ep/trem alio bear hli name, hot 
tn ctearl^ not hii pmdactioiu ; and the 9»mt ii 
true of other worki which It h ' 


■ged, M one of the Pamphjliaa metropolitani^ 

take neaauTw ai;atBiit them io (DCTclical 

tier* wrillen br two inuxuivi biihopa of 

BM. 52), and leeiiu 
matttr with ud. 1 

conjunctiea with Valeri 

of Ei*«o.(*.P-*31)im 

I the 

idl I 

of Ibnner ijpod* agitlnet theM 
hentio (Ubbe, Cone. iil. 13.^1 «{., ed. Colati). 
At thli aamc (wandl we fisd him aHentiDg to 
Cyril'i letter, and mhncribing is rery etrong 
UDgsige to the condemutioB and depcaition irf 
Mertoriiu (ib. pp. 1012, 1046, 1077, 1133). 


I lali 

. SemeoftheHm 



b7 Amphiloehliu oT Sida (3) io the 
AmphilochliB of C;r*'<^ '■< (*■* ^^ 
(ho Fabric Tjil. p. 38*2> 

7. KepHlatian and chnraettr. Of hi 
ukJ chaisctcr a* ■ theologlui and a v 
•xiaat fti^tiiMDta are wholly Inadaquit* a> a 
eriterioB; hut hla reputation with hii cocitem- 
u<rarie* aod with the later Church leait* rery 
fit 1 1* groaud for doubt. Hie cantimporarjr 
Jemnt, au milnntlj anaptt«it judie, ipeiiki 
•f the Cappododan triad, BmH. Gre^^ry, aod 
Amphilnchini. u wHten " who crmm (rcbrdnnt) 
their book* with the leaou and Hnlsnaa of the 
philoK^tr* to inch ao eiteut that jon caooot 
tell which jon aiit[ht to admire m«t ia them, 
their tecalar emdilion or thtir Scriptural know- 
led^.' Epai. 70 (i. p. 42S). Theodoret, in the 
sett generation, Uiinhea epltheti on him, "the 



t wooderftil" {EceL Hal 
and he ii quoted bj Crril of Aleiaudrla sud by 
later fatben. Id Ihe'Conncil of Chnlcedon hit 
■Dthatitj ia cited with rcapecl (Lahbe, Cone. ir. 
1I43> In the QnlnlHitiae Couuci] hii aoom 
are apttrored i<h. TiL 1346), and in the 2Dd 
CwiDCif of Kicaei (l.D. 787) he i> more Ihao 
M4 quoted (Tiii. 113.% I444> 

Of hit character hb inilmatt frieudi are the 

and Gregorr 



their cor'- 

ndenc^ The 



11 J praiHt 

uT* of leomin 

S and 

patient in 


Maiag him a> 

hb "b 

rolher Am 

»r friend <no. 

t bono 

r«l of all 

'• (dr Spir. 


(he lit 


er ipeaka 

the loud 

of him u 
herald of 

Inth. hie pHde " (tarn. Ii, p. lu9B>. He leemi 
to hare UBltad the i^niil aympathr which en- 
4au> tht friend, and the adminlitntlf* eaergi 

I B&tagoniit of the Haaaaljana He * 

by great TaeillatioD, if not intinceritr. It ii 
■ometimea lUted that h* wai prewnt at the 
"robber'i ly nod " (a.d. 449), and there onn- 
mittrd himielf la the policy of Di<»corue and the 
hereey of Euljchee (U QuitD, O.inw Ckrut. \. 
99B). Hii Dwne, howerrr, doei not appear in 
the llat of biihopt auembled then (Lahbe, Omc. 
iT. S89 >q.), aod the ilatemcDt ia qnile UDwar- 
j raated- At the Covucil of l^halccdon, hnwarar, 
' [A.D. 4A1), he ihowed grant tendemeu for Uio- 

bcgan. Ha tried to defer the Hcond citatioa 
of Dioecomi (ir. 1260); uid when afler Ihrta 
cltatiani Dioecorni did not appear, be conaeotad 
to hia CDtidcmiiat ioD, though with evident r*- 
lucUnce (ir. l.'tlO, ia37> At a later eeHwa 
too, he aubecribed hit aateot to the tpistle of 

J Fop* Uo(lr. 1358, 136A); andwefiud hia namt 
alao BEqiended to the eannna cf the oouncil (ir. 

11715). Thiu he committed himself folly to tb« 
principleaofthii council, nnd to the rereraal of tb* 
proceeding! of (he L-iirocinitnn. Bnt a few yean 

I later (i.D. *hS\ when the emperor Leo wrote to 

- itated in rtplj, that, while he diaapprored the 
I appointDwnl of Timotheui Aelamt, he did not 
I acknowledge the authority of tht Cooncil of 
Chalcedon (tingr. //. E. ii. 10). Vet. at if thia 
were not inough. we m (old thai he ahortly 
afterwordi aaaented and aubecribed to ita decreee 
(Eulogiui in Phot. biU. 230). 

The piwibility that tcine of the Horn il ita 
aicribed to AmphilachiiLi of Iconium duit hare 

airudy mentioned. [L} 

AHPUION (or Alebiok, or Aup)[tTRio<i), 
hiihop o( Kpu-hinia In Cilicin Secundn. ■ con- 
feuor in the penecation of Maiimio, atiended 
Iha Couucili of Aacyr3 and Neocaeiarei. LD. 314, 
and Nicaea, 325. (Lalibe, Cunci';. i. l.'>05, 1518, 

batted the Arian doclrine* by hii writiugt. 
( Athen. DUimt. prima coiil. Arian.) lit n identi- 
fied by B<roaiu.< with the Amphinn ln>n>Inled to 
Nicomtdia in place of Enieblu*; but tbia ia 
Joubteil by lltlemont. He appttn in the llomaD 
mutyrolngy, June 12. [E, V.] 

AHPULL1ANU& according to 'Praedeati- 
natni' (L 6i\). a » Bithyuian her»i*rch," who 
taught that all the wicked with the deril and 
erll apirita art purified by fire and reatornl to 
their primitive innocence ; and when hlidoclrint 
' '}j Ibt Cburcb, alleged the Hulhn- 
ht Prind,mit. Poiaihly a ficli- 
Praadaitiaatu' b fertile in 

rity of Origan / 


the inrention of orthodox connciU and writers, tween him and Nestorios. (Cyril, Ep, riii. ; 

AmpuUianiis is his only heretic not otherwise Mercator. vol. ii. p. 49.) We find him after 

known. [H.] the deposition of Nestorins still maintaining his 

ANACLETUS. [Cletub.] Jt"^ and animating his party at Constantinople. 

*• ■* (Lnpus, Ep. 144.) 

ANA8TASIA, an lUyrian matron, first Tillemont identifies him with the Anastasins 

tortured by her husband and then burned by ^jj<, j^ 434 ^^te to Helladius, bishop of Tarsus, 

the judge in the island of Palmaria (Baron. Dec ^^en he and the Oriental bishops were refusing 

25; and see Tillemont, M, E. v, 327, 717). to recognize Proclus as bishop of Constantinople, 

•* Reliquiae S. Anastasiae pharmaceutriae," were bearing witness to his orthodoxy, and urging 

brought from Sirmium to ConsUntinople by ^^^.n, ^^ receive him into communion. (Balux. 

Pulcheria, before A.D. 450 (Kiceph. xir. 10). | 144^ [^ yj 
See Suidas s. v. Ypv^'^oyos; and Theodorut* 

Lector ii. [A W. H.] ANASTASIUS, patriarch' of CoNOTAirri. 

A ^T * «r« A ox^To f . i. * * NOPLE, A.D. 703. His predecessor Germanus, 

ANASTASIUS, bishop of Anctra, one of ^^ose pupil and "syncellus" he had been, had 

the metropolitans to whom the Emperor Leo predicted that he would be calamitous to the 

writes concerning the death of Protcrius, a.d. church (Theoph. Chnm. 341 Par,-, Zonar. AnnaL 

458. His answer is extant (Labbe, Cone. iv. y^^y He was promoted by the influence of the 

1921 sq., ed. Coleti). He was also present at Emperor Leo Isaurus, after the abdication or de- 

the CouncU of Constantmople, a.d. 459 (i(.. v. position of Germanus. According to one account 

*^)* [*'•] force was employed by the emperor to intimidate 

ANASTASIUS, a presbyter of Antioch, *^«^, "^^ opposed the election ; and when the 

celebrated in ecclesiastical history as the confi- I»pulac«» he*ded by some nuns, noted against 

dential friend and counseller of Nestorins, who ^\^ »«^ Patriarch for removing an image of 

accompanied him on his elevation to the archi- ^""'*' "«°» ^'^J P*^**^ ^<'°« nngleaders were 

episcopal seat of Constantinople, and by his bold «J *^»ijw ( ^ »'; Stepham Jun. ap. Anakda Gr. 

uncompromising language aroused the storm f ^'»^; '•> ^""V" , ^ Anastasius favoured the 

which so long raged through the Christian world jconoclasts, which led to hw excommunicatioB 

and swept Nestorius to destruction. Theophanes ^^ Gregory III. (Theoph. 343), and this is not 

styles him the " Syncellus," or confidential secre- unreasonably imputed to his obsequiousness to 

tary of Nestorius, who never took any step without ^^ ^^ *»»«, *^^ Constantinus Copronymus ; for 

consulting him, and being guided by his opinions. '»«.was equally complaisant to Artabasdus when 

Nestorius having commenced a vexatious perse- ^^ *«»"<* ^'^f, ^"•^*»« ^^^ » *»"« (Theoph. 34«j 

cution against the Quartodecimans of Asia in Zonar»"'^* "« ^«« most ignommiously punished 

428, two presbyters, Antonius and Jacobus, were *^° ^"« reUxrix to power of Constantinus, though 

despatched to c^rry his designs into effect. They all«w«l »n mockery to retain his see (Theoph. 

were furnished with letters commendatory from ^^-^>» ^^^ "'^^ miserably of a loathsome disease, 

Anastasius and Photius, bearing witness to the 1^'^ ^•\ % ">™« chronologies he was mada 

soundness of their faith. These two emissaries Patriarch in 728 A.D. p. G. S.J 

of the Archbishop of Constantinople did not re- ANASTASIUS, bishop of Nicaea, present 

strict themselves to their ostensible object to set ^^ jhe Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). At the 

the Asiatics right as to the keeping of Laster, ^^rlier sessions he had not arrived, and was 

but endeavoured to tamper with their faith. At represented by two presbyters (Ubbe, Ckmc. iv. 

Philadelphia they persuaded some siinple-minde^i gr,^^ n^e, 1358, 1378); but later he appears 

clergy to sign a creed of doubtful orthodoxy, ^^^ subscribes in person (i6. 1443, 1521, 1713, 

attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia. This was ^-j-^^y ^^ ^^e 13th session he was charged by 

Bti-ongly opposed by Chansius, the oeconomus of Eunomius of Nicomedia with invading his metro- 

the Church, who charged Jacobus with unsound- ,4^^^ eights over the churches of Bithynia. 

ness m the faith. His opposition arou^^d the ^^e session was taken up in discussing this 

indignation ol Anastasius and Photius, who de- question, and the decision was given agaim;t 

spatched fresh lettei^ reasserting the orthodoxy AnasUisius. The bishop of Nicaea was hence- 

of Jacobus, and requiring the deprivation of Cha- ^^^th to retain the title without exercising the 

risius. (Labbe, Cone*/. 111. 1202, sq., Socr. vii. 29.) jurisdiction of a metropoliUn (A. 1627 sq.). [U] 

It was m a sermon preached by Anastasius at ^ ^ u j 

Constantinople that the fatal words were uttered ANASTASIUS, bishop of NiCAEA. He was 

that destroyed the peace of the Church fur so present at the Synod of Constantinople in 518, 

many years to come, and awoke the fiercest and and signed the letter to the patriarch John, oon- 

most unchristian pasbions. '* Let no one," said demning Severus (Labbe, Cone, v. 1137). His 

the fearless orator, " call Mary ^toroKos. She name also appears attached to the letter of th« 

was but a human being. It is impossible for 
God to be born of a human being." These words 
were eagerly caught up by the enemies of Nes- 
torius. They caused great excitement among 
clergy and laity, which was greatly increased 
when the archbishop by supporting and defend- 
ing Anastasius adopted the language as his own. 
(Soc H. E. vii. 32 ; Evag. H. E. i. 2.) [Nes- 
torius.] In 430, when Cyril had sent a depu- 
tation to Constantinople with an address to the 
emiicror, Anastasius seems to have made some 
Attempt to bring about an accommodation be- 

Synod of 520 to Hormisdas on the appointment 
of Epiphunius {ib. 657). And he took part also 
in the proceedings of the Council of Constan- 
tinople, A.D. .536 (16. 1058, 1232). To this 
Anastasius of Nic<iea is probably to be ascribed 
the Commentary on the Psalms, which is extant 
in MS. Bibl. Coisl. p. 389, and is quoted in the 
Catenae ; see Fabric D, 0. x. p. 610, ed. Harlet. 
Le Quien (Or. Christ, i. p. 644) postulates (for 
what rea.sons he does not state) a third and 
later Anastasius of Nicaea, to whom he assigvf 
this commentary. [L.] 


AXA8TASIUS L, bishop of Rove, conse- 
entod A.11. 398 C* Honorio IV. et Eatychiano coss." 
Prosp. Aq. CAron.), and died in April, A.D. 402 
(Aaaat. fiibl. roL i. p. 62). According to Ana- 
UMiiu Bibliothecariua, he pnt an end to an on- 
wftmij strife between the priests and deacons of 
his church, br enacting that priests as wetl as 
deacons should stand bowing (** curri starent ") 
at the roading of the Gospels. Jerome calls hiro 
a ** Tir iastgnis," who was taken from the evil to 
oouie, ie. who died before the sack of Rome hj 
Goths, JLD. 410. 

There is one letter by Anastaslus still extant. 
Rafinus wrote to him shortly after his consecration 
(not later than A.D. 400, Constant. Epp. Pont. Bo- 
mamorum, p. 714) to defend himself against the 
charge of complicity in the heresy which was 
ascribed to Origen. Anastaslus replies (see Gon- 
staat. he. cit) in a tone which, dealing leniently 
with Rufinos, explicitly condemns Origen. 

Be*ides this, nine other letters are referred 
to>— 1-5. Correspondence with Paulinos, bbhop 
of Kola (Paulinus Nolanus, ep. 20). 6. To 
Aaysitts, bishop of Thessalonica, giving hiro juris- 
dicticm orer Illyria ; referred to by Innocent I., 
in his 1st letter (Constant.). 7. To Johannes, 
bishop of Jerusalem. 8. To African bishops, 
who had sent him an embassy to complain 
of the low state of their clergy. 9. Contra 
Rnfinam, an eputle sent ad Grientem. Hieron. 
{Apolog. lib. 3> [G. H. M.] 

ANASTASIUS TI., bUhop of Rome, snc- 
cecdcd Gelasins L in Norember, A.D. 496 (Clio- 
ton's Fatii Jtomoni, pp. .536, 713> The next 
month after his accession Cloris [CHilodowig ?] was 
baptized, and the new pope wrote him a letter, 
coogratalating him on his conrersion. Anastasios 
has left a name of ill-odoor in the nostrils of 
the Westem Church ; but this is attributable to 
hif haring had the boldness to take a different 
lise from his predecessom with regard to the 
Eastern Church. Pope Felix III. [Fcux III.] 
had excommunicated Acacins of Constantinople, 
professedly on account of his communicating 
vith heretics, hot really because Zeno's Heno- 
tiCT«, which he had sanctioned, gave the Chorch 
of Constantinople a primacy in the East which 
the Mc of Rome could not tolerate. Gelasius 1. 
[<)KLAS]Ut I.] had followed closely in the steps 
of Felix. Bot we find Anastasios, in the year of 
kis accession, sending two bishops (Germanos of 
Ctpua nad Cresconios of Todi (Baronios) to Con- 
•Uatinople, with a proposal that Acacios' name, 
uiOeJid of being expunged from the roll of Pa- 
tharrJu of Constantinople as Gelasios had pro- 
prued, ahoald be left upon the diptychs. and no 
more should be said upon the subject. This pro- 
pouu was in the rery spirit of the Kenoticon ; 
lad by this he gare lasting offence to the Wentem 
O.nvch. After this it need excite no surprise to 
to hear tliat he was charged with communicating 
wirretly with Photinus. a deacon of Thessalonica 
vS* hald with Acacins : and of wishing to heal 
tae breach between the Eaitem and Westem 
Ckcrdi ;— fi^r so it b that it seems best to in- 
Vtrpnt tho words in the narrative of Aoasta>.ius 
bihUoliMcaritts — ** voluit revocare Acaclum" 
(r«L L pu 83)1 

Aaastaaras died in Norember, A.I). 498, when 
W had aliMist oompleted the second year of htx 
ysatifiinfg Bui his memory did not die with 



him, for he was still remembered as the traitor 
who woold hare reversed the excommonicatioL 
of Acacios; and Dante finds him snffering in hell 
the ponishment doe to one whom ** Fotino " se* 
doced from the right way (Dante, Inf. xi. 8, 9). 
Two epistles written by him are extant : one 
in which he informs the Emperor Anastasios of 
his accession (Mansi, riii. p. 188) ; the other to 
Gloria, mentioned abore (ib. p. 193). [G. H. M.j 

ANASTASIUS SINAITA C^yajrdtrios 2i- 
pcdrris). Th]*ee of this name are mentioned by 
ecclesiastical writers, among whom some confu- 
sion exists. Two were patriarchs of Antioch, 
and it has been reasonably questioned whether 
they were erer monks of Moont Sinai, and 
whether the title ^Sinaita" has not been erro- 
neoosly given to them from their being oon« 
foonded with the one who really was so. 

(1) Bishop of Antioch, socceeded Domnos III. 
A.D. 559 (Clinton, Fasti Itomani), He is praised 
by Eragrios {H. E. ir. 40) for his theological 
learning, the strictness of his life, and his well- 
balanced character in intercoorse with others. 
He resolotely opposed Jostinian's edict in faroor 
of the Aphthartodocetae, and encooraged the mo- 
nastic bodies of Syria who had applied to him 
for advice to maintain their groond against it, 
A.D. 563 (Evag. iv. 39, 40). Jostinian, in con- 
seqoence, threatened him with deposition and 
exile, bot his death in 565 hindered his design, 
which was however carried into effect five 
rears later by his nephew Jostin II., a.d. 570. 
^resh charges were brooght against Anastasios of 
profose expenditore of the foods of his see, and 
of intemperate Ungoage and action in reference 
to the consecration of John, bishop of Alexandria, 
hy John, bishop of Constantinople, in the life- 
time of the former bishop, Eotychios (E%'ag. v. 1 ; 
Valesios' notes^ Aid. ; Theophan. Chron. ; Clinton, 
Fast. Horn.). He was socceeded by Gregory, on 
whose death, in the middle of 593 (ClintonX 
he was restored to his episcopate. This was 
chiefly doe to the infinence of Gregory the 
Great, who had pleaded his caose with the Em- 
peror Maurice und his son Theodosios, adding 
the reqoest that if not reinstated he might be 
allowed to reside at Rome (Evag. vi. 24 ; Gregor. 
Mag. Ep. i. 2.'), 27 ; Ind. ix.). Gregory wrote 
him a congratolatory letter on his retorn to 
Antioch {Ep. iv. 37; Ind. xiv.); and several 
epistles are preserved in the collection of his 
letters, relating to the claim the bishop of Con- 
stantinople was then making to the title of 
" oniversal bishop," and remonstrating with him 
on the milder view he was inclined to take of 
the assomption (Ep. iv. 36, Ind. xiii. ; ri. 24, 31, 
Ind. xr.). Anastasios defended the orthodox 
view of the Procession of the Holr Ghost (liaron. 
Annaf. EccL 593), and died at the close of 598 
(Clinton, Fast. Eom.). 

Five sermons, ** De Orthodoxa fide," and five 
others, printed in a Latin version by Migne and 
others, are ascribed by some to this Anastohios. 
Oodin, Dopln, and others, refer them more pro* 
bably to a later Anastasios. For a catalogoe and 
dekoription of the works assigned to him, either 
existing or lost, see Fabricios Bibi. Grace, vol. ix. 
pp. 332-336, and Migne. 

(S) Socceeded the elder Anastasios as bishop 
of Antioch in the beginning of 599. We have a 
letter of Gregory the Great to him (Eo, r\L 48, 



Ind. li.) (ckonwlcdslsg; tht iweipt of on* u- 
imaucing bis ippointineat, ind dcckriaK hii 
uHicrancc to the orthodoj fulh. Gre^rf hud 
■Irudf written to faim Won 597 (Ep. vij. 3, 
lad. l), eihcning him to ouuttiiiG; under tlii 
pcnecutlau of bcrelio. H« lianalaUd Ore- 
gor)-'i De Cirtl Piatorali into Greek (*. 1. 22, 
Ind. T.). Hii daith occurred in nil iniurrection 
of the Jewa, Sept. 610 (Cliotoa, F. R.\ bj whom 
hii dead bodj oni horriblj mutilnted Bad burol. 
Kicephonw {//, E. xnu. +4) confound* him with 

(S) A prleal (ud monk of the moniKter; of 
Uonat SioAi, to whom, &om hii contemplative 
life ipent in the Hcred moDaUiD, the title of 
MiM^t vin, wu given in later time*. He boa 
b««n trrontaiuly confounded bj Nieflphi 

biihope to the p«apte of Hionpolit (A. STt^ 
AlVer the council he migiiad bit le* of hit own 
accord, ud ipent hii time in riilting th« eiilw 
(A. p. 446}. Le Quien {Or. CAriil. i. MS) cob- 
lidtntly identiRe* him with Anoituiui, the pre*- 
bfter who wu the nilj of Neitoriiu ; but of thi* 
there ii no *vid«nce. [L.] 

ASASTAeilTS. CI) Abbot of the Uonu- 
ter7 of St. Euilijmiui, in Paleatine. whoM errar 
in referring the Triagion to the Sm *lpae led 

Jo. Dami 

e bii I 

. of the u 

with tl 


be*n altributrd to the earlier of them ; 
plain from hii Hodegot that be lived late in the 
71h oenturf. Thi> Anulaiiui ii icarcelf Imown 
to u> eiwpt from bit worti, which, though 
Toluminona, are of little value. He woa a leal- 
ona champion of the ortbodoi laith againat the 
MonophyiitijK, and leaving fail mouatterj tra- 
vaned Syria and Egypt with the view to 
contmverttag their doctrinal. He held public 
diaputationi with the chiefa of their party at 
Aleiandria (Hodegoa, c i.), and, according to hia 
own atalement, confuted them thoroughly, and 
routed the popular indignation HgaiDit them u 
ai almoat to lead to their being atoned. A full 
cata1<%ue and deseriptjon of hia n-rilinga maj b« 
fonoil in Fabriciua BSil. Orate, vol. ii. pp. 313- 
322, printed al» in Mlgae'a edition of hii wurka. 
The moat noteworthy art the following--(l) 
'Otirrtl,oi "Guide to the true way," written 
agninst the Mooopbyiutea, eapecially thoee known 
u the Acephali, entering Ailly upon the erro- 
neona viewi of Severui, the Uonuphy«ite pa- 
trisrt-h of Antioch and his followen the 
"Pbthartolatrae" (cc vi.-i>, ix.), u wi^ll >a of 
their opponeDti, theGaJBnita<(A]ihthartDdDcMae. 

Phantuiaitae), the adberenti of Julianus Gr ' 

bishopufHalicamiiou(cc I. uili.). Thii 

«f the disputations ahow couiderabla subtlety. 
It hoa been probnbt]- interpolated. (2) "Ques- 
tiona and Answer* on Holy Scriptura'" 0E)>«4- 
<rt,i lal -AxDirplirtit) 154 in number. In tbeae. 
rariuuB dilEcuilieg — historical, theolottieal, moral 
— are propounded and uawered, cbMly from 
the writint,'] of the htbtn. Thia work akao haa 
been much interpolated. (3) TwoIt* hooka of 
Anngogical Contemplation* on the Creation of 
the World and Fall of Man, " Anagoglcae Con- 
lemplntiouea In Heiatmerou ad Theophllum," of 
which the Rrat eleven eiiat only in » Ulin 
iransliitiaii, tha tweinh also in the original 
Greek. This work gives >n allegorical interpre- 
tation of Gen. L-iii. and only deserves reading 
for It* ingenuity. Several sermons are given in 
Migne's edition, *nd a "Diiputatio odvenus 
Judeoa." [E. v.] 

AVASTASITIS, bishop of TenedOb, a stanch 
supporter of Keitoriui. At the Council of 
Ephectu ho joined In the protest to Cyril agslnit 
oommeDcing proceedings before the arrival of 
Ji^af AntJoch<Labbe, Cone. iv. 364). He also 
" 1 tb« ajnodicol letter of th« Oritntal 

great diSerei 
Ondia place* him a. 740, Adelnng a. 8T5, and 
Fnbricius also In the 9th cent. (Cf. Fabridus, £iU 
Oraec. tom. ii. p. 336.) He wrote a tnatise against 
Judaism, published in Latin, Canii. Antiq. Ltd. 

(dvi, Hilt. La. I. p. 828.) 

(9) Bishop of jERUsaLEM, luceeeded JuTenall* 
as 48th biibop A.D. 458. According to Cvril of 
Scythopslia (Acta Sancti Euthi/mii Ablat.),ht hod 

Srevioutly been a preabyter of the church of 
ernialem, and keeper of the aacrsd veasels of 
the church of the Reaurrection, and a ehorepiaco- 
pus. He waa a disciple of St. Fassarion. and 
emulated his virtues. Being led by a duir* to 
become acquainted with one so fnmooa for hia 
holineu, Is visit St. Eatbymlua at his Laura, he 
waa saluted by him imtnedlatelv on bis arrival 
aa "Pstrinrch of Jernwlem." fiulbymius being 
apprised of his error, and bis attention directed 
to the silk rol-ea of Amutastu*, replied that he 

n the 1 

th« patriarch, and that hi 

if Aleiandria with TheodosiU) U., aflt 
itionofKlavianusbytbe "Robber-Coi 

, of Dimcom* at Conatuiti 

lii.). ARer 

biihop of CoaniHTl- 

nople (Zon. 

(Lao. £pp. ad Tkettd. 
ad J'tUch. S,']). he publicly condemned tbe 
j hereaiea both of Eutychas and Kestoriu*, tigning 
the letters of Cyril agaiut NeatoHu and of Leo 
agalDit Latychra (Leo, ^ip. 40, 41, 48). In 
ronjunclion with Leo of Rome, according to 
Zonaras {Aim. iii. ), he reqneattd the Emperor 
Uarclanua to sumnuin a general counnl against 
l>io!*corus and the Eutychiana; bat the Imperial 
letter direcling Anatolina to make pr«paratinna 
for the Council at Chalcadon B]>eahs only of Leo 
(Labbe, Cone. Max. T-m. iv.). Nicephorua add* 
a story {Hial. iv. 5) that ader the council Ana- 

.cil i 


(Labbe, Cone. Mai. iv. ; Evagr. Hial 
Niceph. Hilt. it. 18). By the b 
canon, passed at the ccncludion of tha Cot 
equal dignity was ascribed toConalantinople with 
Rome (Labbe, iv. T96; Evagr. ii. 18). Hence 
arose (he conlroveriy between Anatoliua and thi 
Roman pontiff. Leo complained to UnrcioDua 
(^.>. M) and t-r Pulcheria {Ep. 6,'i) that Aaau- 
lius had outstepped bis jurisdictiuD, by conse- 
crating Uaiimus to the see of Antioch ; tad he 
remonatrated with Anatoliua himself {Ep. S3> 
Though atRrat anapidoua of Anatolina aa • &itBd 


UitD-tlBiuiaiiiam, ud, in partknlar, of luriog 
RBO**! Aitiiu, an ■dhgrtnl of FliTianiu from 
lb« Dtfic« of Archdacon, ia order to promot* Id 
Ua atawl Aadreu, > maa or EutycWn ijai- 
fatbio (Epp. M, ST). Analoliu rcTcncd tlili 
urutcnnt (Lhl Ep. 71), bat be uitDnilj 
mcBted thi* inltrfereace, and thoa nilenled 
chux*> "f unbitioB, Hpedallj from inch a 
qmna {Lie. £p1B% Aaatoliaa died in 45B A.D. 
Ob the •bale, if we einpt the nuecratioa 
at Malimw, Analolioa laemi to hare acted with 
prailanca and moderation noder rtrj irfiDg cir- 

Len. OB behalf of iome dergj wbo repented of 
lb* part «bich the^ had been forced into taJiing 
In iht - Robbtr-Coondl • (Uo, Epp. 41, 44, 4d). 
AfUr the Council of Chalcedoii aome Lgf ptisD 
biataoua wnila to Aaatoliua, eaniatlj' atking bi> 
■iut TimathcDi, wba wai usurping 
tbnne at Aleiandria (Lobbe, Com. 
Mat.' i*.'ili. -^3, p. 897). Analoliui wrote 
atm^lj lo the Empemr Lto agninit Timotbeni 
{l.abbs iU. SG, p. »<*:•}. The circulnr of tba 
emperar nqaeatiBg the adficc af ABstoliui on 
titt turbultBt (UU af Aleiandria ii giien bjr 
RTa(Tiu>(/f>>l.ii. 9),andbyNlcepbonu(Auf.iT. 
llfX Tba craaroiag of Lm> on hii acceuion bj 
Autoliua b uld (Cibbon, jii. JI3) to be tb* 
fir>t iaataaca of tba kind on record (Theoph. 
Onn. 95 1-ar.). [I. C. H.'] 

ANATOIJtrS, biabop of LaOdicka id Syria 
Prima, aucccoded bia fellow-coualrymiiD Eiueblna 
A.D.i»9,l,atx<»lrya$iii!yaiti. (tuMl. //. £. 
Til. 3^.) Tfatrvtreboth from Altiandria, when 

titful of bia kDowlnlga of the liberal aril. 
EuMbiua attributes to him eicelleoc* in anih- 
Betic (teometrr, aalronomT, diaiectica, rhelorir, 
••d phfiica. He wa* r«iue>inl bji hit ftllow- 

WBi hu eaineDce confined to inlellectual par- 
•aita. Hii nputstioD for practicnl wlidnm waa 
as treat that when tba luburb uf Itruchaium 
vaa be-le^red hj the llomana during the revolt 
•f Aeniliaana, x.o. ■2'yl, the cummaad of the 
plac* vaa aBi|{ned to him. Provbiuot haring 
£ulcd, and bia propovilion of mnking ttrma 
a lib iba beaicKen haTiiiK been iDiiignaalljr 
n)Hlal. Anatoliua obtaioed leiTe lo reliert 
(he (arruna of all idle moulba, ami bjr ■ clever 
dtiYpciiJB mxrchtd oat all the CliriitiaDi. and 

HiTlng pniaed 



•torka wen pnblbhad at Paria. IMS. ud br 
Kabriciua, Bibl Onue. i=i 463 (Hieroa. &. Sai 
=.7:1). [LV.] 

ANATOLIDS, patridaa, Connl A.D. 440, 
ud "Magiater Uilitum" in tbe Eaat, *her« 
hia wiaa and Joet adminlatTBtion gained nnl* 
renal reipect and tatMin. Ula ijmpathlea 
were with tbe ortbodoi portion o[ tbe Charrb, 
who owed ranch to hia protc^tioD. During 
bb retldence in the Eait he waa a frrqaent 
hearer of Theodoret, whom ha regardad with 

I ccnfideiKia] intimacjr. The mutnal friendahip 
that iDbilited between Theodoret and Anatfllliu 

II erideoced bj the letttn of the (brmer, alter 
hii powerful friend'a removai to Iba Mat of go- 

roDble BOectiDg 

laelf or 

bit diocese. Tlieodortt at once invoked the i 
Anatoliua, who on hu part appeari lo have doao 
bb ntmo.t to obUIn what he desired. When, 
t 444, through the (■!■* repr«aeniat<Bw of a 
deprived biihojs perhaps Athanaiiua of Perrba, 
Ihe tales aod imp«t> of Kime of the Eaitem 
provioL-ea, including Theodoret's own of Knphra- 
leaait. had beta largelj Incnoiad, to Ihe great 

toliua. teatiffing to the universal sorrow lelt at 
hu depnrture, and beg)^Dg him still to watch 
over the Intemta of the prDvioce, and obtain a 
remltiinn of their burdena. (Theodt. Ep. ilv.) 
When, eariT in 449, Theodoret received the em- 

immedLite recourae to Aoatoliui to learn' whether 




ipl -« ao au 

hentic do< 

amen^ and to 

n him unheard. 


im at Conatan- 




D hi< depnitio 

br Ihe Ulrodnium h»d 


taken pb«, he sought 

leav. through 

channel to vis 

I CoBstan 

tinopl. and l.j 

befure Ihe bia 

opaof th 

Wut. AsaB 


of hb own 


he forwarded 



letters addresaed lo Kl 

vian, then re- 


«™«d. Hia r 

bv Uarcian ib 



e<l foMh aaothe 


etier, acknow- 


Ihe share Ana 

ciiua had 

had in it, and 

J hia Ihaa 

emiieror nod empren, and hia requeat that tbej 
would aummon a true Coiindl. (Theodt. Ep. 
liiii. cii. ciii. ciii. ciiiviii.) On the aaaemblv 
of tbe Council of Chalcedon, Anatoliua repro' 
■ented hi) imjieriiil mnaier, and took the lea>l io 
denuiniling the admiHiiuu of Thendolet. (Ijibba, 
Cvmcil. B50. »74, 1443.) [t. V,] 

AKDIDEIttS, » Upnan of C;tui, to whom 
Theodoret wtule during hia banishment, beeging 

1 nf Cae 

1 I'ct 

w pr-nmi 

right of... 

k ^ the Paacbnl question, publbhni in i 
ranwa bj Uucheriua, l>u:l. /nip.. Aniv. 
liiBa fragmiaU of hii mtthemitica] 

toquil the nt^ou account of hia eiile. (Theodt. Ctv.] 

AN'D)t>:AS CKKTEN'StR. as called from 

iMmaacua, and pasaed some yeara at Jeniialera, 
fl'ora which he ia known aa 'lapovoAvufTitfl, i 
'1t)Ma'i>>,i'>>uir, though there is no ground for the 

Theiidure, liiahoii of JrruMilem, deputed him ta 
attend tbe Oth General Council, hel.1 at C.natan- 
I liDUjila i-D. 680, lo aup|»rt tb« orthodot Utb 



Rgaiiut th« Monothelites. A copy of iambic 
Terses is printed by Combefis, Auctar, Nov. ii. 
and by Migne, in which he thanks Agatho, the 
ai-ohdeacon and Iceeper o£ the archives, for hav- 
ing communicated to him the acts of that 
oonncil. At Constantinople he was ordained 
deacon, and appointed guardian of orphans. He 
subsequently became archbishop of Crete, whence 
it has been maintained by some, from a confu- 
sion of two persons bearing the same name, that 
he was transferred to Caefiarea in Cappadocia 
(Oudin de Script. Ecd, Suppl. p. 190). Oudin and 
Papebroch have adyanced reasons for supposing 
that the date usually assigned to Andreas is incor- 
rect, and that he should be placed A.D. 840-850. 
But it is pi-obable that here also a similarity of 
name has misled them, and that some of the works 
on which their arguments are based were by later 
namesakes. (See Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 453.) 

The works which go under the name of 
Andi*ea8 Cretensis comprise Homilies and Canons, 
Triodia and other rhythmical compositions, from 
the latter of which he has derived his chief cele- 
brity. He is famous in the Greek Church as the 
author of the Magnus Canon (of which Combefis 
says, " vix habuerunt Graeci augustius avitae 
pietatis monumentum **), still sung, ** cum labore 
multo et pulmonum fatigatione,** on the Thurs- 
day before Palm Sunday, known as ^ Festum 
Tov /A«7fliAov ntar6vos** This ode, which is of 
prodigious length (occupying 28 columns in 
Migne) and considerable beauty, is of a deeply 
penitential chai*acter, in which the soul goes 
through a list of the chief sinners and saints of 
Holy Writ, likening itself to the one, and lament- 
ing how far it falls short of the other. Migne*s 
collection also contains a Canon on Latarusy a 
Triodium for Palm Sunday^ Tdiomela, &c. Of 
his Homilies, 21 have been published ; 19 still 
remain in MS. Among the former are four on 
the Nativity of the B. V. Mary, one on the 
Annunciation (the earliest notice of that Festival), 
and three on The Sleep of the B. V. Mary, These 
ai-e of interest, as illustrating the growth of the 
cultus of the Virgin, and as forming one of the 
earliest authorities for the legendary history of 
her parents, Joachim and Anna, and her own 
childhood. In them we find some of the first ex- 
amples of the flowery and turgid language with 
which later developments have made us so familiar. 
Mary is styled " The Diadem of Beauty," " The 
Rod of Aaron," "The Sceptre of David," "The 
Mediatrix of the Law and Grace," " The Common 
Refuge of all Christians." There are also Homilies 
on St. George, St. Nicolas of Myra, St. Patapius, 
&c., full of miraculous legends. 

The works of Andreas wei*e first published by 
Combefis, in conjunction with those of Amphilo* 
chius and Methodius (Paris, 1644); as well as 
in his Auctarium Nottim (Par. 1648, pp. 1290 sq.) ; 
and by Galland (Hibl. Pair. xiii. 689) and by 
Migne (Patrol, vol. xcvii.). A Computus Pas- 
chatisy ascribed to him, was published by Petavius 
(Doctr. lemp. vol. iii. p. 393). There is great 
reason to question the genuineness of some of 
the works attributed to him. A commentary 
on the Apocalypse, printed by Combefis, probably 
belongs to his namesake of Caesarea. (Fabr. BUtk. 
Graec, xi. 62 ; Cave, IJist, Lit. i. 453 ; Oudin, 
ii. 174-188; Schrockh, xx. 135 sq.; Gallandi, 
BiU. Pair, liiL 6: Combefis, BibL Concionat. 
L 4.) [L v.] 


from being bishop of Samosata at the time of the 
Council of Ephesus a.d. 431. Sickness prevented 
his attending the council (Labbe, Condi, iii. 506) ; 
but he took a leading part in the controversies 
between Cyril and the Oriental bishops that suc- 
ceeded it. Without identifying himself with 
the erroneous teaching ascribed to Nestorius, he 
showed himself his zealous defender, and remained 
firm to him when his cause had been deserted by 
almost all. For his zeal in the defcnt« of an here- 
siarch he is styled by Anastasius Sinaita 6 Updttttp, 
The reputation of Andreas for learning and con- 
troversial skill caused John of Antioch to select 
him, together with his attached friend Theodoret, 
to answer Cyril's anathemas against Nestorius. 
(Labbe, iii. 1150; Liberatus, c. iv. p. 16.) Cyril 
replied and wrote in defence of his anathema.'*, 
which called forth a second treatUe from Andreas 
(Labbe, iii. 827). When Rabulas, bishop of Edesm, 
had gone over to the ranks of Cyril's supporters, 
and publkfhed an anathematization of Nestorian 
writings, he included Andreas by name. Rabu- 
las's clergy did not share in the ciianged views 
of their bishop, who, with all the zeal of a new 
convert, appears to have made their lives so 
bitter to them, that they seriously entertained 
the question of separating from his communion. 
The question was referred by them to Andreas, 
who laid the matter before his venerable metro- 
politan, Alexander of Hierapolis, by whom it was 
sent on to his p:itriarch, John of Antioch. Of his 
decision we are ignorant. (Baluz. Nov, Collect, 
Condi, 748, 749.) In 453 Andreas accompanied 
Alexander and Theodoret to the council sum- 
moned at Antioch by Aristolaus the tribune, in 
compliance with the commands of Theodosius, 
to consult how the breach with Cyril might be 
healed. (/5. 764.) On the amicable reception by 
Acacius and John of Cyril's letter written in 
answer to the rescript of this council, Andreas 
fully sympathized with his aged metropolitan 
Alexander s distress and indignation. Alexander 
communicated to him copies of all the documents 
that had passed, and letters were interchanged 
in which Andreas laments the gradual weakening 
of the opiwsition. ( fh. 764, 765, 796.) These feel- 
ings were much heightened when peace was re- 
Cbtahlished between Cyril and the bast. Andreas 
deplored the recognition of Cyril's orthodoxy by 
so many bishops, and desired to bury himself in 
some solitude where he might weep. {lb, 784, 
785, 796, 797.) This was before he had seen 
Cyril's letter. On perusing Cvril's own state- 
ment his opinions changed. What Cyril had 
written was orthodox. No prejudice against him 
ought to prevent his acknowledging it. The 
pence of the Church was superior to all privata 
feelings. His alteration of sentiments exasper- 
ated Alexander, who refused to see or speak 
to his former friend. (76.810,811.) Andreas 
deeply felt this alienation of one he so much 
venerated, but it could not lead him to retrace 
his steps. He used his utmost endeavours in 
vain to persuade Alexander to attend the council 
at Zeugma, at which the orthodoxy of Cyril's 
letter was acknowledged. (lb. 805.) Towards 
the end of the same year 433, Andreas undertook 
a journey to Edessa, partly to avoid the violent 
opposition raised against him in his own diocese, 
as a traitor to the faith, by one Gemellinus, pro* 
bably one of his clergy ; partly to become reott- 


dM U B^nlu. On hit my lit wu urwtcd 
bj Ulnaii. Prom bli >ick-W be irroU ■ iri» 
ud t»eilUMr7lcItcrtaAl«iindcr. Tli«tai«<r 
nt ■* DncompTsmliiDg u before. Tb« reply of 
Andrpu, miDlf bot rupcctful, aipmHi bii 
grief ml '■ --•--• '^---J -■ — '■ '•" 



polu declad 

to the " 

ud bi> di 

(conomi " of Hi«i 

of Pope Siitiu, John 
nf AnlittJi, ind Rabulu. (lb. 80T-9.) 

When DomDiu WMnbled ■ conocil at Antloch, 

Perrbi, Andreu vu intnmDDed to attend it ; 
bat wai kept away b^ ill hesltb. (Labbe, CokH. 

it miut hare been before 451. irhtD RuRdiu vbi 
biabopofSuiuiula. ThcodDrrtipealci ofAndreaa 
vith much affKtino aod eiteem, aad praiwi bit 
homilitT, and readineis to help the D«dj and dit- 
in»ed.'(Thefflor*t, Epiil. hit. p. 918,) Hit own 

eoBTiDced that he waa in the wrong, sad bit 
^™«»mB.a, . '"(-£. v.] 

[icra OP Ak«tu:i (Apocryphal), p, 30, a.] 

ANENCLETUS. [Clktcb.] 

ANGEUOI. EpIphtaiDi (Haer. In. 305 f.) 
bad heard of a KCt be arin; thit name, but conid 
<^taiD no fnrtheT inrormation. Hit conjcctaret 
do Bol dcMire menlion. For the name compare 
AecHo:ina and Akcuo.i. [H.] 

ANGELOLATBY. The tendency to paat 
from Ifac feeling of rererence and love to that of 
tdotatiao, ■> at once recognited, and rebuknl in 

Id CoL ii. It), the S^oicda thc iyifi^itr nppean 
u Tally dettl.i|>ed, and ai i^onnecled with wild 

vhateTer degree of rererenca it aanctloned, li 
■ diitingnltbed {torn that which It to b* 
to God. Irenaeua (ii. 57) ipeaka of the 
Cbnrch at "doing nothing by the iDroeatlon of 
^ngeli," Origen (c. Ctlt. Tiii. 57-58) pTot«>U 
igaiott wonhipping them "inttead of God.* 
\ugn>tiQ< (de Ver. fielig.c 55)definet the limlti 

la Tirtote, nee eii tetopla conitruimDi," and In 
lit On/niiou (i. 42) condcmnt the pracUoe ai 
eadinp; to''Ti>iont and illntiont." The tecond 

[E. H. P.] 

ANOELB. It will be necetaaiy briedy to I«- 
cspitQlata the belief which the Church inberitad 
from the writingt of the O. T., and yet man 
from thote of the N. T. at to the natnre Bad 
fUnctioni of Aoneli. To ince the groaih of 
that belief itialf belong! to an earlier itage of ln< 
qniry; but to know what It actually waa when It 
ttnrted on itt new coufh, ii a nacewar; condition 
of our being able to ettimate rightly what force* 
acted, and what new accretiont inperveneJ, on it. 
Men found then in Scripture the recognition of 
an nndeliaed multitude of beingt, who bore tha 
name of the 'Angelt' or 'Mestengen' of Qod. 
They were the " hott of heaTen," the " Army " of 
the Great King. They are reckoned, like the 
atmiet of earth, by "legions." ll wntin relation 
Wthem, prominently, if not eiciuiively, that H« 
wai ipoken of at tbe Lord God of Sabtotha 
(2 Sam. vi. 2. el al.y. They wore known at " the 
Soni of God " (Job i. 6, ii. 1) ; they were At irsvp- 
ymi uri't/itiTa, worth ipping in the Eternal 
Temple, with hymnt of praite (Heb. i. U ; b.Ti. 
3 ; 1>> cilviii. 2 ti of.), tent forth to miniiter for 
the heira of talvolion (Hcb. i. 14). They, eien 
the highest who " behold the face " of Ood, watch 
over lilile children (Matt, iviii. 10). There it 

penteth " (l.uke jr. lU). Tliey bad rejoiced in 
the work of crenlion (Job iiiviii. 7), they had 
appeared to l';itriiiii:h», and Pro[Jiet», and 
Apoatlea. They watched over the unfolding of 
God't purpose in the eventtuf theworld't hiitory 
(1 Klngi iiii, IS; Una. i. 12, 13). They were 
Hi. ageotJ in the work of jws 

itr'pbijer*." "r who make " phylacteriea," and 
Len, iu <:. .t7-.<H, wama men againit taking part 
ll J«wi»h fauta. or receiving from Jews or 
rrctia the patdial Ifvus. &>, too, Theodoret 
" e bereti ' 

U;;cla tfaoalJ be won 


ihipped, at having been 
■erealiDg the law on Sinai. Theie 
Ktctieai, be tajo, bad inCeatod Ptarygia .ind 
I'liudia fi<r a lung time, anri throughout the 
■h.4« Jifllnct weri' to be teen Oratoriea dedicated 
It St. Ui«h»l.ta which, Apparently, people gare 

Tnt laagoagt of the earlier Fathen at to luch 
■' TnlT thai of deprecation. An 
In Jnatin (ApoJ. 1. 6) teemi 
i U allow **wenhlp and adoration," bat 

night I 

Nalivitv. One had brought the m 
locanuiioD (Luke t. -26). They ministered to 
Our Lord after Hit Temptation and in His Agoav 
(Matt. ir. 11; Luke Ilii. 4:>>. Ther iinnounced 
the fact of the lieuirrectiun to the tormwing 
diiclplei (Malt, iiviii. 2; Luke iiir. 4; Mark 
xri. 5), and after the Atceution, told them that 
Iheir Lord thould come again at they had teen 
Himgo(Actti. 11). They were to come at that 


Jc M Doffiprllnl 

Mr, Qrove. .bo 

BibU. llnill. lb. met 


otcalth. Bol 



allim. The won 

igaln tad teal 

and nan at- 



Jer.^). It ml 




UrelT lubiinUni 







second Advent in the train of the Son of Man 
(Matt. 25. 31), and were to be His agents in the 
work of judgment (Mark xiii. 27). The "trump 
of the Archangel" is to be the signal of the 
general resurrection (1 Thess. iv. 16). Mean- 
time they " desire to look into " the mysteries of 
the coming glory (1 Pet. i. 12X and the day and 
the hour of the irapowrla itself are hidden from 
them (Mark xiii. 32). An angel delivered Peter 
(Acts xii. 7), and smote Herod (Acts xii. 23) and 
appeared to Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts x. 3), and 
stood by St. Paul during his shipwreck (AcU 
xxvii. 23). When they were visibly manifested 
to men, it was as young men in long white gar- 
ments, after the pattern t. e. of the dress of the 
Priests and Levites of the Temple (Mark xvi. 5 ; 
Acts i. 11). Like those Priests, they blow the 
trumpet, and oifer incense (Rev. viii. 2-4). And 
in this great " host of God " there were orders 
and degrees. Pre-eminence was indicated by names 
like " captain of the Lord's host *' (Josh. v. 14), 
'* Michael, one of the chief princes " (Dan. x. 13), 
the Angel of the presence (i. e. Heb., the face), of 
God (Isaiah Ixiii. 9), those that ** stand in the 
presence of God '* (Luke i. 19), and ** behold His 
fiice " (Matt, xviii. 10). There are Archangels 
(1 Thess. iv. 16; Jude v. 9), Cherubim, Sera- 
phim (whatever had been the original connota- 
tion of the words, they had come to be identified 
with angels in the first days of Christendom), 
** thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers '* 
(Col. i. 16 ; Eph. i. 21). The number of these 
Archangels had been given in one of the books of 
the Canon of the LXX. as '' seven " (Tobit xii. 15). 
To two of them names had been given in the 
Canonical Books, Gabriel (** the hero of God "), 
and Michael ("Who is like unto God?'*). 
Another, Raphael ("the healing of God") ap- 
peared in Tobit (/. c). There were tendencies 
in the Apostolic Age to a "worshipping of 
angels" (Col. ii. 18). The Apocalypse had at 
once recognised that worship as so natural that 
even the beloved Apostle was infected by it, and 
represented the angel himself as deprecating it, 
and describing his position as being simply that 
of a " fellow slave " of the Apostles and Prophets 
of the Church (Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 8). And 
there had also been angels that had not " kept 
their first estate " (Jude v. 6). They also had a 
captain of their host, a prince of demons (Matt. xii. 
24). They too, while some were " kept in chains 
under darkness to the great day " (Jude /. c.) 
were, some of them, sent forth by their chief, the 
" prince of the power of the air " (Eph. ii. 2) to 
work evil, moral and physical, among men, 
sometimes in that work, though against their 
will, carrying into effect the counsels of the 
Supreme God. 

W*e have now to trace the after-growths of 
speculation that gathered round what had thus 
been received as of divine authoritv. It is 
obvious that it was precisely in this region, 
where there was no sharply defined test of truth, 
that imagination was likely to be most active. 
Probably the language of the N. T. itself, does 
but represent a part of the floating belief of the 
time. Those who passed from Judaism to Chris- 
tianity, and they were almost everywhere the 
nadeuA of the Church, brought with them a full, 
•ne might almost call it a monstrous, angelology. 
The EM^es, whose influence cannot be excluded 
firom the history of Christian dogma, made it 



one of the vows of their brotherhood, that those 
who wei-e admitted to it should not disclose to 
others "the names of the Angels" (Joseph. B. J. ii. 
8, § 7). And it is clear, so far as Christian specu- 
lations are traceable to an external source, that it 
is in this direction that we must look. The phi- 
losophy of Greece had nothing to contribute to 
them.*^ It was only by insensible degrees that the 
superstitions of Polytheism crept into the Church, 
and attached themselves to Angelolatry. 

The love of dogmatic definiteness in all things, 
led men in this, as in other regions of thought, 
to ask manifold questions, and then to make 
answer to themselves— (1.) When were the 
Angels created? The silence of Gen. L, though 
they saw in it a wise reserve, guarding the Jews 
from the perils of creature-worship (Chrysost. 
Horn. i. in Gen. i. p. 81 ; Theodor. QttMst in 
Gen. ft. ; Pseudo-Athanas. Quaest. ad Ant. iv. vol. 
iii. p. 333), and therefore, confining the narrative 
to the creation of the visible universe (Chrys. in 
Ps. viii.), did not hinder them from " rushing " 
into the annals of the invisible, (a) Some held, 
with Origen, that their existence went far back 
" before the aeons," that even then they wor- 
shipped and obeyed (Origen. Horn. i. in Gen. ; Notn. 
iv. in Esaian. Tract, ix. in Matth. De Prvncip. 
i. 5, 8). (6) Others, more moderately, were 
content to assert the priority of all the " unseen 
creatures of God over the things that arc " seen, 
and of the "spiritual" over the "material."* 
Angels were created before the work of Gen. i. 
began. The LXX. translation of Job xxxviii. 7. 
5t€ iytvtro iffrpttf ^y€<rav /it wcUrct &77CA01 
/iov, was naturally pressed into the service of 
this view (Greg. Naz. Orat xxxviii. p. 617; 
Chrysost. Orat. irp6s robs ffKayJi. c. 7). (c) 
Others, still seeking to satisfy the conditions of 
Job xxxviii. 7, placed this creation of angels on 
the first of the six days, as included in the word 
"heavens" (Eptphan. Ilaer. Ixv. p. 264; Theo- 
doret Quaest, iv. in Gen.) 

(2). Then came the question : What was their 
nature? Had they bodies? Were they, with 
or without bodies, subject to the limitations of 
space ? And here there were discordant answers, 
(a). They were iur^fiaroi koI votpai (Ignat. ad 
Troll. ; Euseb. Dcm. Evang. iv. p. 105 ; Chrysost. 
tom. vi. Horn, xvii., tom. v. Horn. cvii.). Their 
forms were but phenomenal. They assume any 
shape that God wills. (6). Others, baflled in 
their attempts to conceive individual existence, 
apart from material limitations, ascribe to them 
<r^/jLara \4irra (Macar. Aegt^pt, Horn. iv. p. 117), 
a body " sui generis " (Tertull. de Came Cfiristif 
c. vi.), " like fire or air " (Caesarius Dial. i. Interr. 
48). As the passage in Job was the battle- 
field of the first question, so here that which 
most occupied men's thoughts were the words of 
Gen. vL 2, which state that " the sons of God " • 
took to themselves wives of the daughters of 
men. Josephus, clearly expressing the prevalent 

b iiie question bow fiur the angelology of Ctulatendom 
is ounneeted with that of the Zendavesta belongs to 
biblical, not ecclesiastical antiquity. If there were any 
sudi cuonectloD, It was clearly through Judaism as the 
intermediate link. 

• A touch of PlaAnism is perh^[» traceable here. 

' It Is clear from the quotations tn the Fathers that 
many MSS. of the LXX. rendered the phrase by oi •yyr- 
\oi Tov 0COV (AngasU Dt Cio. Dei, xr. as: CjrW. C 
JuUan. Ix. IK SMX 


balief of hii aumtrynwD, lud idcDtificd them 
■ilh Iht Ang«l> (Alt. L IT.). It kept it> groaud 
for tbc fint four ctntiuict, «u uurtcd in the 
Aaiiog. of Jnitia (p. 130), sad Atheiugoisi 
i,LfJ<^- [>• -S)i Klo|it«l bjr CleDiEBt dl AleuDdm 
(/•omtcy. iii, p. S2-2. j Strom, ui. p. 450); Ter- 
talliiD (<£> J7<i^. i/HiuA. ii. IT ) de Callu Feinin. 
I.), and man/ olhen. Cfarj-sottoDi (ifom. xji'i. 
ta G«.) followed by Theodoret (iju. 1(011. m 
CalX and the PKndo-Athuiitiua (_Qiiacit. ad 
AM. hii.y, ntolatcly appoied it, on the grnuDd 
Uu* the ADgeU, bting jocorporeo], could not 
know corporeal appetita, and gare Gnrnncy to 
vhat hu UDce bMU the more coauDDDly I'cceired 
iDtfrpretatton, which identifio "the iods of 
God ' with the deeceiHlanti of Seth, ascribing the 
(lil of the DDtedilniiaQ period, to theit inter' 
marriige with the dsnghten of Cain's progeny. 

Then came the qaeation,— (3). How and wbeu 
•tu it that the evil Aogela fell. The iiaita moit 
comiDODl; eirea wai that it wu through pride, 
ind that they followed their great chief (oa io 
Uiltoa'i Paradite Loal) iu ■ rebellious struggle 
for toprtmacy. Those who interpreted Gen. 
rL 2, of "annb" made the fall of those there 
mentioned, the retnlt of the admiisiun of kd- 
mou lust, folloving the apparent metmiDg of 
Jade It. 6, 7, and, in that ate, if they arranged 
(Tcnti io a chronological order, must have 
looked on thii ai a leeaad apoitacy, adding to 

(tX Uen began to apecuLate even as to the 
•tatiitici and polity of angel-llfe. The "tfrelve 
lecioni" of Uatt. iitI. S3, the "ten thoniands" 
oflheh>>lyone>arDeut.uiiil. 2,the "thouiaod 
thoiuuidi" raiaisleriug, the " ten thouijuiil timei 
Kn thoniand " sUnding, of Dan. Tii. ]0, the 
- iaonnwrable CDmp.iny^' of Heb. lii. 22, were 
taken a> giving hioti as to the number of the 
hrarnly tao«t. The parable of the to>t >h«p led 
Irenaeni (iii. 21 and 39), Origea (_Him. iL in 
'Jrit.i, Ambrvse (Apoi. Dav. c 5), and others, to 
m^ke the proportioD of Angela to men, 31 99 to 1. 

In<m the redec 
'. -'MX And 
wu t hierartby of orden, 

n>, by <l 


e then 

ta appointed 
inociioni. ma eiistence of such a hierarchy was 
i-Hrted br the second Council of Constantinople, 
■- 2 and 14 (•« also 2 Nlcaen. iii. c. 4), and 
ippeared in iti fnlly developed form, itainped, 
■ hrough it, upon mediKval thco]<^y, in the tren- 
tirf IM IlitnrchiA, aaortbed to Diouytiiu the 
Areopagilc. Here the orders are nine in number, 

liDgUjc* fails to eipreie the conception 01' ciich 
diiiiscily. So we have— 

i L The Scraphini, the fiery ones, excelling 


4. The Damlutione, eeeking after like- 

nesa to the true Dominion. 

5. The Powen, working the will of God 

with nnreating energy. 
S. The Aatborities, enforcing obedienc* 

to the Supreme Authority. 
T. The Princedoms, who guide the destiny 

a TheArchangels, employed in Ihehigher 

9. The Angels, nnployed in the lower 

It will be seen, that 

de Cetleat. Bitrarch. 

cott's article on 'Di 

Contemporary Snieu 

strictly Angelt—itjit on tbe tasks which 

gives them — are placed in the third or Io 

le Areopaglte 


[r freely. Reproducing, 

of the gnardiai 

1 men by Angel 
msginalion migli 
consciously or uc 


is {Jalqvt. J 

risible ti 

. 147), 


rol. There were angels or 
: brute creation,' angels even of the plants 
nrn. xin. in Sum.: c. Celt. viii. p. 418). He 
ms men not to lead such a life ss will bring 
m under the brute angeli, but by prayer, to 
at into fellowship with Michael, who offers th« 
.yers of the Saints, or by healing sonls, into 
,t of Raphael (de Proic. 1. 8, iii. 3). Every 
verted soul, he leaches, baa ten thousand holy 
vera praying with him nnbiddeo (0. Cela. tiii. 
p. 420). So, in like manner the Idea of angelic 

at Sacral 

I. The font, or tank, of Baptism 
receive its regenerating power in 
Bir agency, and wu accordingly 

ious), and t 

:a John 

most baptisUries. 'fha 
lee of the 'I'er-Sanclus in all Liturgies, im- 
:hBt from the very first, they were thought 
Mnneiion with the Supper of the Lonl, the 
9 of the Church in its most sotcinu act 
ling with tho» of "Angels and Ar.;h- 

<n of 1 Cor. X 

10, V 

for deo 

» St. 1 

>e Angels 

I 2. The Cherablm, with their 
I. ' beholding God, and so . 

I knowledge. 

3. Tlw ThroDea, with their < 
t macy of will over deair*. 

• AIncaaf tUabi 
tetOsdwaaH ->liiii11<rH 
Mcs- la Ik* Cbntb at Qiflud Bnrial Hi 

many eyea, 

Tie Kamet of Angeli.— Two only, il will b* 

remembered, are named in the Canonical Books, 

both appearing for the first lima in DiinleL 

Gabriel (Dno. viil. 16, It. Si ; Luke i. 19. 26), and 

ichsel(Dan. i. !:<, 21, iii. 1> The appearance 

Raphael in Tobit (v. 4, 15), shews that that 

' "■-- .le«an.lrian period 

la familiar di 

e, both in Jewiib a 

appeared to Abraham in Gen. iriii. (Jama. (. 31 
Peiach. {. U3). They only are recognised in tli 

Ito'SM, Ui. U. e 1. 


thought of as the Angel of Lighter one of the ANNA, king of the East Angles. He was the 

chief Seven. To these, the Jews added Rnchael, son of Eni, the brother of Redwald, and sno- 

the Angel of the Wind; Abdiel, the Servant of ceeded the kings Sigebert and Egric, who were 

God ; ^mmael, the Angel of Death, and others : killed hj Penda in 635. The conversion of the 

while the names of Jophiel,Chamuel, and Zadkiel East Angles was carried out under Anna, by 

appear in the more obscure Christian traditions. Fursey, whose monastery at Cnobhsresburg was 

A full account of the development of Jewish greatly embellished by him, and by the bishops 

angelology, may be found in Eisenmenger. £ntd, Felix, Thomas, and Berhtgils, in connexion with 

Jwienth. ii. c. 7 ; and in the art. Engel. by the Kentish mission. The piety of Anna and his 

Bohmer in Herzog*s Real'Encyciopadie. But the family was very famous, and little else is known 

three above-named are all that connect them- about him. In 645 he received Csenwalh, king of 

selves with Christian archaeology, and the facts, Wessex, at his court, and gave him an asylum 

connected with them, will be found under their for the three years of his exile. Bede mentions 

respective names. (For the full scholastic deve- of Anna's children, Sexberga, the wife of Earcon- 

lopments of Angelology see Pet. Lomb. ii. 2-12, bert, king of Kent, afterwards abbess of Ely : — 

and Aquin. /Summ. Thiol, i. qu. 50-65, 106-113. Ethelberga, abbess of Farmoutier; and Ethel- 

Comp. also the article * Angels and Archangels,' dreda, abbess of Ely. To these Florence of Wor- 

in the Dictionary of Christ. Ant.) [E. H. P.] cester adds Wihtburga, a nun at Elv ; and the 

ANIANU8 (called also Adrianus by Sozo- ^'^^/^'j^^f'* *7u "^f Aldulf and Jurminus 
men), presbyter of Antioch, was ordained bishop ?"* *^« ^^^^F V'^^fuK'^^i'''''^vLxt ^"^'X^^ 
of that church at the turbulent council of Seleu- ^nna with that of his brother Ethelhere. The 
cia, A.D. 359, in the room of Eudoxius, who, ^^^^^^ connexion of Anna with the Christian 
together with Acacius and others, had been P<>^«" »»» ^ent, Northumbna and Wessex, and 
deposed by the majority of the bishops present. P««-^*P« «>""« pretension to the position of his 
Th7 Acacian party immediately arrested the ^">^^«r ^^""^^ seems to have drawn on him 
newly-made biihop, and deliver^ him into the the enmity of Penda, who m 654 attacked, de- 
hands of the civil authorities Leonas and Lau- ^^f/^^V?"'* -^^""^ oJ" ^?^^' ^- f c!"* ^' re-?' 
rentius, by whom he was committed to a mili- ^*^'' -^''««»», ^ Stewart, p. 14, 15). [S.] 

tary guard, and then sent into exile. The ANNE, ST. Anna (Heb. nan, graces or 

consecrating bishops lodzed a protest against r^ ^a \ a.\. •/> c^i v j 

these violent proc^ings in the hands of the P^^y^' > ,G/- A»:»'«), the wife of Joachim and 

same authorities, and finding the step useless, mother of the Virgm Mary. 

proceeded to Constantinople to present their comi ^ ^he story of her married life and the won- 

plaint to the Emperor Constantius. The subse- ^J°,^» ^''^^ of her daughter is found in three 

quent fortunes of Anianus are not known. Nice- of the Apocryphal Gospels 

phorus gives 4 yeai-s to his episcopate but his , J^% T/^V^^iS^.^H* f,^'^'^^ de Nattr^- 

iumbers^re not to be trusted (Socr.^. k ii. 40 ; ^//^ £' ^^^P^ (Jhilo s Codex ^pocry^us, pp^ 

Soz. I/. E. iv. 22 ; Clinton, f) R.). [E. V.J ^}l ^'}\'''f ,'l *^' ^T Sl'?' ^^"^ 

' » / L J Infantid Salcatons (Thilo. pp. 337 ff.), is as 

ANICETUS, bishop of Rome, stated in Eu- follows :— 
sebius's History (iv. 11) to have succeeded Pius xhe virgin was born at Nazareth, to which 
in A.D. 157, in his Chronicle a year earlier (f. 87). city her father Joachim belonged ; while Anna, 
According however to Pearson and Dodwell's ve- her mother, was a native of Bethlehem. Joachim 
rifiv;Htion of the dates, the year of his accession and Anna were pious and faultless before men, 
would be A.D. 142. Anastasius Bibliothecarius and their lives were plain and right in the sight 
singles him out as the pope who prescribed the ©f the Lord, and in this manner they lived more 
tonsure for the clergy (Anast. vol. i. p. 13); than twenty years without anv children. Every 
and a forged letter upon this subject is given by feast in the year they went to'the temple of the 
Isidorus Mercator (Constant, p. 75). But the LorJ^ vowing that if blessed with any issue they 
single reliable fact that is recorded of him has re- would devote it to the service of God. At the 
ference to the early Paschal Controversy (Euseb. feast of the dedication, Joachim with others of 
H. E. iv. 24). He, like his four predecessors, did his tribe presented himself with his offering, and 
not allow the Jewish or Quartodeciman usage ^as reproached by the high priest with his child- 
within their own Church, but communicated as less condition. Overcome with shame, he took 
freely as before with other Churches which did refuge with the shepherds in the pastures, not 
allow it. In A.D. 159, Polycarp visited Rome, daring to return home and meet the taunts of 
with the inUntion of persuading Anicetus to his neighbours. After he had been there some 
adopt the Quartodeciman practice. But Anicetus time the angel of the Lord appeared to him 
was firm, even against the age and saintliness of ^ith a prodigious light, and exhorted him to 
Polycarp. As a mark of personal respect, he « pgar not, for his prayers were heard, and his 
allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist in Rome ; alms had ascended before God." Then after re- 
but they parted without agreement on this point, ferring to Sarah, Rachel, and the mothers of 
though with mutual cordiality. We are told Samson and Samuel, he added that Anna also, 
that Anicetus was buried in the Calixtine ceme- though barren and advanced in years, should 
tery on April 20th; the year would be a.d. 168, bear a daughter, whoee name should be called 
if we trust Eusebius's dates (//. E. iv. 19) : but Marv, from whom while yet a virgin should be 
Pearson fixes it a.d. 161, Dodwell a.d. 153. born the Son of the most High God, Jesus, the 
(Pearson, De serie et successions primorum Rom-ie Saviour of all nations. In token whereof, Joachim, 
epp. pp. 274-314; Dodwell, de Pontt. Romano- at the. golden gate of Jerusalem, would meet 
rum primaevd auccessioney p. 221.) [G. H. M.] Anna his wife coming forth to meet him, much 
> So Milton placet) him in the'sun, as ite goaidtan angel troubled that he had not returned sooner. Tht 
Per. Lott, Ui. 648. angel afterwards appeared to Anna, to whom ht 


rcTealetl himself m the angel who had offered 
op her prajers and alms unto God, and who was 
sent to tell her that a daughter should be born 
to her whose name was to be Mary ; he also 
gave directions for the bringing np of the holy 
child, and foretold the glory reserved for her as 
the %nrgin mother of the Lord. 

Anna was farther instructed by the angel to 
go to the golden eate, where she would meet 
her husband, which she did accordingly, and 
they both praised the Lord "who exalts the 
humble." They then returned home, and " lived 
in a cheerful and assured expectation of the 
promise of God ;** and in due time Anna brought 
forth a daughter, and " according to the angel's 
command the parents did call her Mary." 

In the Protevangelium Jacobi (Thilo, pp. 161 
fr.X the story of the Virgin's parents stands as 
fellows : — 

A certain man named Joachim, being very 
rich, made double offerings to the Lord, having 
resolved that his substance should be for the 
benelit of the whole people ; that so he might 
obtam mercy, and the forgiveness of his sins. 
At one of the great feasts, wh^n the children of 
Israel were presenting their offerings to the 
Lord, Joachim was repulsed by Reuben the high 
priest, who said it was not lawful for him to 
offer gifts who " had begotten no issue in Israel." 
In great distress of mind Joachim went to con- 
sult the registries of the twelve tribes, and found 
that all the righteous had raised up seed in 
Israel, and calling to mind that to Abraham in 
the end of his life Isaac had been born, he re- 
tired into the wilderness, where he pitched a 
tent, and fasted forty days and forty nights, 
resolving that prayer should be his meat and 
drink until the Lord should look down upon 

In the mcnn time, Anna, his wife, was bewail- 
ing her widowhood and her barrenness. Troubled 
by the words of her maid Judith, who reproached 
her mistress with being under God's curse, in 
thit she was not a mother in Israel, she went 
intti her garden and sat under a laurel tree. 
While there she prayed unto God lo regard her 
pnyer and bless her, as He had blessed Sarah 
in giving her Isaac her son. Looking up she 
(-erceived a sparrow's nest in the laurel, and 
bemoaned her barrenness, which made her ac- 
curse^i before the children of Israel, and caused 
her to be derided in the temple of God ; nay, 
which placed her below the brutes, — the waters 
c( the sea. — the very earth itself. Tlien an 
anirel of the Lord stood by her, and told her 
tbst God had heard her prayer, that she should 
bring forth, aud her progeny should be spoken 
ft in all the world. Anna immediately vuwed 
UiAt her offApring, whether male or female, 
tiioald be devoted to the Lord. Two angels then 
appeared, announcing the approach of Joachim 
vith his shepherds. When Anna saw him 
coming, ihc ran and hung about his neck, giving 
thanks to God who had removed from her the 
iouble corse of widowhood and barrenness. 
J'jachim abode the first day in his house, and 
c& the morr<>w brought his offerings, praying 
taat the plate on the priest's forehead might 
ftake it manifest that the Lord was propitious 
onto him. The desireil token was granted, and 
be weat down from the temple of tho Lord 
Jirtiftnt^ aod he went to hia own house. In 



due time Anna was delivered of a child, and said 
to the midwife " What have I brought forth V* 
who answered, ** A girl." Then Anna said, " Tha 
Lord hath this day magnified my soul " ; and when 
the days of her purification were accomplished 
she gave suck to the child, and called her name 

It is obvious that there are in this narrative 
traits derived from the histories of the births of 
Isaac and Samuel, of Samson and the Shunam- 
mite's son; a more exact parallel still is the 
birth of St. John the Baptist. The cultus of 
the Virgin (more especially the growing enthu- 
siasm fur the doctrine of the Immaculate Con- 
ception) supplied the motive, and these instances 
of miraculous birth recorded with Divine autho- 
rity supplied the ready pattern for the construc- 
tion of such a legend. 

Notwithstanding the wide currency of the 
legend in later times, no mention of the Virgin's 
parents occurs in the fathers of the first three 
centuries. Epiphanius, who was made Bishop of 
Salamis in Cyprus, in 368, is the first to men- 
tion them, speaking of the Virgin Mary as ** the 
daughter of Anna and Joachim " {Haeres, 78, 17, 
p. 1042), and they are also named by Gregory 
Nyssen. In the teeth of these authorities Pel- 
licia {EccUs. Politia, iv. 11, § 6) asserts that the 
names of the Virgin's parents are not mentioned 
earlier than the 7th century, when they occur 
for the first time in the Chronicon Paschaie. 

John of Damascus, writing early in the 8th 
century, gives the story of her barrenness and 
of her prayer for a child ; and when her prayer 
is granted, he says, **Itaque Gratia (= Anna) 
peperit Dominam," and he seems to hint his own 
faith in the story by calling her "lectissimam 
illam et summis laudibus dignam mulicrem." 

In the Bollandist account the author of the 
commentary on the Hexahemeron • is quoted for 
assigning a supernatural character to the birth 
of the blessed Virgin ; and it is implied, but not 
expressly stated, that her birth was not due to 
natural causes. 

More than one church has claimed the dis- 
tinction of i)osses5ing her head, and many have 
boasted of less important relics. About the 
time of Charlemagne, the legend of St.* Anne, 
and the circulation of stories and extracts 
from the Apocryphal Gosjiels, made her name 
familiar to the churches of the West ; and she 
soon attained a wide celebrity in the Latin 
Church, and, in Spain especially, became the 
patron saint of many churches. 

It was not until the year 1584 that the ob- 
servance of her festival was imposed by autho- 
rity on the Western Church, but long before 
that time the feast of St. Anne had become 
general and popular ; and her place in early and 
in later religious art corresponds very nearly 
with the date of this authoritative recognition 
of her as a saint, for up to the end of the 15th 
century the parents of the Virgin appear only 
as subordinate to the Virgin herself,^ that is, 
they form one group only of the series of figures 
associated with her life. Later on St. Anne 
appears in devotional art not merely as an his- 
torical personage but as occupying an indepen- 

• Published by Leo AIUtla^ nnder the nsme of St. 
Eostathlos, BUbop of Antioch. 



rtent poiition, and m heiwlf the object of jcTt- 
renn or of wonhip. Kuper, the BollnDdiit, 
gitM a long; Ibt of tb< minclu wrought in her 
name and by her relics, in n hiitorj of her lift, 
ber legendi, her calttu, *Dd her miracles, \ 
occnpiei more tb*ii (iity folio pagei of 

in I lermon on the Nativity by De Oersi 
was chancellor of Porii early in the 11 
tury), and their quiiot lagguCion n 
worth while la repMt them here. 
' ADCkilrtbuinnprit Jeactalin. atophu, eilDm 

Pilmm Jqam i Jtcubum Jowpfa cnm Simona Jill 

The Bollandist writer (July, toI. ri. p. 250) 

HDd then proceeds to recite all objection* vhich 
can be urged againit her monogamy. [L C H.] 

ANNIANU8 (St.), the fint bi^op of Alex- 
ANDBiA, 63-66, uid to have been appointed by 
SL Hark, after he had wrought a miracle upon 
him (Eu»b. //. £. ii. 24, ilL 14, 21 ; Caul. Aj: 
rii. 46; Chna. Oritnt. 89; Tlllemont, Sfem.Eccl. 
ii. 42, &c> He ia commemorated in the Roman 
martywlojtjr with St. Mark on April 25. [W.] 

ANOMOEAN8 (from ifd^o.oi, *J.ifflii.rX 
one of the appellations of the radical Ariani who, 
in oppoiition to the Atbanasian or Niccne doc- 
trine of the consubetantiality ii^mualr\ nnd 
the lemi-Arian riew of the lilieneit (t^auva'fa), 
of the Son to the Father, Uught that the Son 
was dissimilar, and of a different auhstence 
{ir,f»i<r.o,). [AriaHibM.] [E". S.] 

ANSO, monk and abbat of Laube, or Lobbes, 
in Belgium, and author of the lirei of SS. Ursmar 
and ErmiDiua. his predecessors, succeeded the 
abbat Theodulfus in 776. and died in 800. Re 
19 described by one of hie lucceuoii, Fulcuin. 
who died in 990, as a good and holy man, and a 

life of St. Ursmar, dedicatwT to Theodulfus, wu 
compiled, as Anao states, from the metrical lift 
of this aaint, which SL Elminiui, his immediat* 
•uccessor in 713, had written, with the addition 
of some miracles, detailed by eye-witnesses. It 
may be seen in Mabillon, Act. SS. Btn. iii. p. 1, 
246 ; Act. SS. Bill. April ii. 560. It is in- 
teresting as contnining evidence of certain points 
of ecclesiastical disoinlioe, such as the use of 
holy water. The file of St. Erminins, or 
Erminto, who died in 737, was written before 
768. It is marked by the nme concisenesa of 
detail and style as the preceding life, and Is 
found in Mabillon, u( iiqira, p. 564 ; Ad. SS. Boll. 
April iii. .175. (See Hittoxre Lit. de la France, iv. 
203, 304; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 637.) [C. D.] 
ANTENOB, a Gallicnn bishop about 720, is 
known only as the biographer of Si, .SiWlnne, 
bishop of Tcrouaane. who died probably in 717. 
His intimate friendship with the aaint com- 
mended, while his bad style nnd method de- 
tracted from the value of his work. The defecU 
induced an anonymous author of the 9th cen- 

I tnry to retouch the work, "not altering the 
I eense, but arranging with (^renter dearneis paa- 
sagei which teemed confnsed and irregalar." 
' This interpolated edition only has survived, and 
may be >een, illustrated with notes and observa- 
tions, in Act. SS. Boll. Febr. iii. 24-32 ; Mabillon, 
Act. Ben. lit. 1. 295-299. Bnillefs criticism of 
thia revised life ( 1 'in dei Saiati, Fevrier, col. 
235) seems gratuitously severe. (See Hiitoirt 
LU. de la /Voatc, iv. p. 49 \ Cave, ffirf. Lit. 
p. 622.) [C. D.] 

ANTER08, bishop of Rome; juccecied 
Bishop Fontlanus Kovember 21, A-D. 235 ("Or- 
dinntus li. Kal. Decembr. coti. Severo et Quin- 

Tol. ii. p. 183), but oulT .iirvived him one 
month, dying January 3rd, in the neit year. 

eoss," toe, cit.) [G. H. M.] 

ANTHBHIUS, a Bytantine official of high ' 
rank and character, one of the most celebrated 
and moat highly commended magistrates of hii 
day (or his witi)bm and adininislrative power. 
He regarded Chrysostom with the grealeet re- 
spect, which was fully returned by the arch- 
bishop. At the time of the disturbances that 
accompanied Chrrsostom's deposition, Easter, 404, 
Anthemius held the place of "magister olEcio- 
rum." The saint's enemiei demanded of him a 
troop of soldiers to disperse the cmwd. At fini 
he positively refused. Subsequently he yielde>i 
lo their importunity, somewhat weakly throwing 
the responsibility of the consequences on them 
(Pallad. p. 83), In 405 Anthemius was made 
Consul, and ven' shortly afterwards Frefect of 
the East (Cod. T/iCod. Chnmol. \>. 148). Chry 

The title of Pairici.iu b given him in the law 
of Ap. 28, 40e (Cod. Theod. CKna. p, 149). He 
held his prefecture till A.D. 417, and was prime 
minister lo Thcodoslus the younger (Socr. II. E. 
vii, 1). He waa the grandfather of Ihe Emperor 
Anthemius by his daughter married to Procopius. 
He assisted nt the reception at Coosliintlnople of 
the relics of the prophet Samuel {Chron. Alex. 
p. 714; Theod. Lett. ii. 64; Titlemont, Em- 
prreuri, vi. p. 2. [E. V.] 

ANTHEMIUS, bishop of Salauis, or Con- 
intia, in Cyprus, at the beginning of the 
Emperor Zeno's reign, c, 474, He sUGces^nilly 
inde[iendenfe of his see of (hat ol 
ist Peter the Fuller, aided by the 
•n of the body of S. Damal-as 
drob-tree, proving the h(io»I<- 


of the . 

s lector 

lib. ii. ad iait. [E. V.] 

ANTHEMUB. bishop of Zorapassa (or Com- 



of Isai 

attended the Council of Kicaea. (Labbe, 

CoacU. ii. 58.) [E. V.] 

ANTHEON, bishop of Arsiooe, fi. about A.D. 

14, the author of a letter to Pinter the Fnller, 

ndemnntory of his additions to the Trisagion. 

(CoBCi7, iv, p. 1113; Cove, Hist. Lit. l, p. 

457.) [E, v.] 

ANTHIMUS (Trnpeiuntius) was raised from 

e tee of Trapeius to the patriarchate of Con- 

intinople, 535, a,d., through Ihe influence of 

the Empress Theodora, who favoured the Muuo- 

physitet (Tbooph. CAnm. 183 /'or.; Nioe|ih. 

oiu nereucs. ii seems, nowever, irom jnicepno- • —. — : : . — • .*-~ \ — 'j^ 

ru» (xrii. 9), as weU as from the acts of the P?«f» the heretic intended to be t 

Cooncil, that Anthimus professed to accept the Valentinians bnefly noticed by Ii 

(Council of Chalcedon; but that he omitted ^^J? ^!*®t Vv /n°^*?r 


Hut. xvii. 7). In the next rear, Agapetus arrired second fend broke ont between the two, in which 

from Rome, and persuaded the emperor Justinian Anthimus was again the aggressor. A certain 

to cause the accusations which sereral archiman- Faustus had applied to Basil to consecrate him to 

drites and others (Niceph. xvii. 9) brought an Armenian see ; but, as he did not produce the 

against the orthodoxy of Anthimus to be sub- proper authority, the consecration was deferred, 

mitted to a Synod at Constantinople (Theoph. He immediately applied to Anthimus, who at once 

184). Agapetus died before the conclusion of ' complied with his request, thus setting canonical 

the (tynod; but Anthimus was condemned as rules at defiance (Basil. J^. 120, 121, 122). A 

Eutychian, and as having been uncanonically reconciliation, however, seems to have been 

translated {Cone. Colet. v. 974). Nicephorus effected, as we find Basil afterwards speaking of 

adds (xvii. 9) that Anthimus, though repeatedly Anthimus in very friendly terms {Ep, 210, rhr 

summoned, was afraid to present himself before 6fi6^vxo¥ rifiAy). JElxcept in connexion with 

th^ Council. According to £vagrius (iv. 11) he Basil and Gregory, nothing is known of thu 

waA induced by Severus of Antioch, the leader prelate. (See Tillemont, Mem. Eocl. ix. p. 174 

of the Monophysites, to resign the see for con- sq., 196 sq. ; Gamier Vit. Bas. Op. iii. p. cxi. sq., 

science's sake. There seems no authority for p. cxxiii. sq. [L.] 

Baronius' statement, that Anthimus was deposed vTmTTT»i-wT»T & xtt mvi 

from the priesthood. The sentence of the synod , ANTHROPIANl. This name occurs in 

was ratified by the emperor, and Anthimus was J»»»"!« »^«^ ^»«^ «f representative heresies m 

banished {Cmc. v. 1239), his name being classed Latin authors (Cypr. Ep. 73 ad Jub, § 4 ; Lact. 

with those of Anus, Eutyches, and other notori- £"«• ?^- ^^ V*"^®!^^' .*P;^'*^;^'. 5f- ™ *^- 

OQA heretics. It seems, however, from Nicepho- ^3 "in omnibus MSS.. [Bened.]> Grabe sup- 

poses the heretics intended to be the section of 

Irenaeus (59), 

the univer«« 

(G^VV. 105irthrn^e"'o7 Leoli-om Ae'dVpI " ?J«?-" Schliemann {Die ClanenUntn 475 f.) 

tychs. He was deposed from the episcopate 536 ^>**^ ^^^^. "T** ^^^^^f^^» «^« Symmachian^ 

^ jj rj Q g -| t. e. the Ebionites of N. Africa, sometimes called 

^ ' ' Ifomuncionitae. They are probably also, as he 

ANTHIMUS, bishop of Tyana, an am- suggests, the ilnMrjpc^^nw of the interpola 

bitious and contentious prelate, a contemporary Wian epistle ^dTm//. 11, where the old 

of St. Risil, with whom he appears first on ^V° ''*"'*'° ifcbwmtas to tllos H(mtn^ 

friendly terms (Basil. Ep. 58). In the year 372 ^«««>rM. [H.] 

he joiM with Risil in subscribing a circuUr ANTHROPOLATRAE Q Kpepmw6\arpai\ 

letter addressed by the Oriental bishops to those ^ nickname given by the Ai)ollinarians (c. A.D. 

of Itay and Gau {Ep. 92). But immediately 37^) ^^ the Catholics, on the assumption that 

alW dissensions broke out between them. On ^he union of " perfect God " with " perfect Man " 

two wvertl occasions we find Anthimus ma necessarily involved two Persons in Chrbt, and 

position of antagonism to Basil. ( ) When the therefore that the Catholic exposition of the doo- 

province of Cupi»a.locia wa* divided and Tyana ^rine implied the worship of a man : an infer- 

became the capital ol the second division. An- ^n^^ assumed to be avoided by the special Apol- 

thimu* insisted that the ecclesiastical arrange- Unarian dogma. See AroLLiXARi8(the Younger), 

ments should follow the civil, and claimed The nickname in question is mentioned by St. 

metro,x>litAn rights over sevenil of Basil s Qreg. Naz. Orat li, who retorts that in truth, if 

saflr.iirans. Though a man ot advanced age, he j^ ^^^ j, ^o be called by a name of the kind, 

carriei out his ambitious design with vigour and ^he Apollinarian ought to be called "crapjco- 

al.n;ity. At the same time he was assisted by xHtowj FA W HI 

the disaifeciion which prevailed in Ba-sil's i»ro- 

vince. He coaxed some bishoiw into submission, ANTHROPOMORPHITAE (Anthropo- 

threatene<I and overawe<l some, and expelled morphism), (&y9p(»iro5, mmy and /lop^, ft/rm). 

oth'TS who continued recalcitrant from their Terms applied to those who ascribe to GoU human 

•'•es. He was even bold enough to attack Basil shape and form. Wemust distinguish two kinds of . 

on a JAurney, and plunder a train of mules laden anthrojramorphism, a doctrinal and a symbolical, 

with supplies of money and i)rovisions for the The former is heretical, the latter Scriptural, 

l-'.-hop of <'uesarea. This quarrel led to the one and necessarily arises from the imi>erfection of 

ait in BaNil's life which his friend Gregory never humitn language and human knowledge of God. 

f'tr^ave nor forgot. He consecrated Gregory The one takes the Scripture passages which 

bi'^nup of Sasima, a see which lay not far from s|>eak of God's arm, hand, eye, ear, mouth, &c., 

Ty-tna and over which Anthimus claimed metro- literally; the other understands and uses them 

|o'!itan nights, thinking thus to establish an in- figuratively. Anthro|>omorphism is always con- 

vitt'^iMe ontpost against his aggressive nnta- nected with anthropopathism (from iyOp^nros 

g"ni»t. So long as Gregory remained there, he and irc(9oY, /laMif/n), which ascribes to God human 

staunchly resisted alike the enticements and the passions and affections, such as wrath, anger, 

menaces of Anthimus ; but he soon resigned the .envy, jealousy, pity, repentance. The latter, 

fi^« which he had so unwillingly occupied, and 
which he could onlv have maintained bv force 
[Grecort Naziaszen]. a i»eace, however, 
wxh patched op l^tween Basil and Anthimus, 
apparently by the intercession of Gregory. This 
happ^'ned in the vear 372 (Greg. Naz. (Jr. xliii. 
L p. 813 aq. ; Ep. 47, 48, 49, 50, il. p. 42 sq. ; 
Carm. ii. p. 696 iq.) (2) Soon aflerwanhi a 

however, does not necessarily imply the former. 
All forms of idolatry, especially those of Greece 
and Kome, are essentially anthropomorphic and 
anthro|>opathic. The classical divinities are in 
character simply deifie<j men and women. The 
Christian, Jewish, and Mohammedan religions 
teach that God is a Spirit, and thus elevate him 
above the reach of materialiatio and MBtnal 



conceptions and representations. Bnt within 
the Christian Church anthropomorphism ap- 
peared from time to time as an isolated opinion 
or as the tenet of a party. Tertullian is often 
charged with it, because he ascribed to God a 
body. {Adv. Prax. c 7 : — '* Quis enim negabit. 
Deom corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ? Spirit- 
as enim corpus sui generis in effigie.") But he 
probably identified corporeality with substantial- 
ity, and hence he maintained that everything 
real had a body of some kind. (/>« Came Chr, 
c. 11 : — " Omne quod est, coipus est sui generis, 
nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est." The 
pseudo-Clemlsntine Homilies (xvii. 2 sq.) teach 
that God, in order to be an object of love, must 
be the highest beauty, and, consequently, have 
a body, since there is no beauty without form ; 
nor could we pray to a God who was mere spirit. 
(Comp. Baur, Vorlesungen vber die Dogmen' 
geachichte, vol. i. p. 412.) In the middle of the 
4th century Audius, or Audaeus, of Syria, a bold 
censor of the luxury and vices of the clergy, 
and an irregularly consecrated bishop, founded 
a strictly ascetic sect, which were called Audians 
or Anthropomorphitei, and maintained themselves, 
in spite of repeated persecution, till the close of 
the 5th century. He started from a literal in- 
terpretation of Gen. i. 28, and reasoned from the 
nature of man to the nature of God, whose image 
he was (Epiphanius, Haer. 70 ; Theodoret, U. E. 
iv. 9 ; Walch, Ketzerhi^oriej iii. 300). During 
the Origenistic controversies towards the close 
of the 4th century, anthropomorphism was held 
independently by many Egyptian monks in the 
Scetic desert, who, with Pathomius at their head, 
were the most violent opponents of the spiritual- 
istic theology of Origen, and were likewise called 
Anthropomorphites ; they felt the need of sensual 
conceptions in their prayers and ascetic exercises. 
Theophilus of Alexandria, formerly an admirer of 
Origen, became his bitter opponent, and expelled 
the Origenists from Egypt, but nevertheless he 
rejected the Anthropomorphism of the anti- 
Origenistic monks {Epist. Pastr. for 399). In 
the present century Anthropomorphism has been 
revived by the Mormons, who conceive God as 
an intelligent material being, with body, mem- 
bers, and passions, and unable to occupy two 
distinct places at once. [P. S.] 

ANTHUSA, mother of St. Chrysostom. 

ANTICHRIST.— 1. The word CAvrixpitrros) 
appears for the first time in 1 John ii. 18, iv. 
3. It must be noted, however, that the Apostle 
does not use it as a new word. Those who read 
his Epistle had already heard that " Antichrist 
should come." It is open, therefore, to conjec- 
ture, that it had been first uttered in the period 
of the great burst of Apocalyptic utterances, of 
which we find traces in St. Paul's Epistle to the 
Thessalonians, and in those of St. Peter, St. Jude, 
St. John, in the Apocalypse itself. The sharp 
precision with which St. Paul had pointed to 
" the man of sin," " the lawless one," " the adver- 
sary," " the son of perdition," led men to dwell 
on that thought rather than on the many 
4'€v8<JXP'(rroi, of whom Christ himself had spoken 
(Matt, xxiii. 24, Mark xiii. 22). All Jewish uses 
of the word, which appears in later Rabbinic 
writings in Hebrew characters DE^^Hp^tO^K 
AiMrbanel, in Eisenmenger, Enid, Judenth. ii. 


p. 747) are obviously derived from Christian 

2. The word, on this its first appearance on 
the stage of human thought, hovered between 
two meanings, possibly included both of them. 
The analogy of iurriBtos (Hom. //. xxi. 594), 
&m\cW (Aristoph. Equit. v. 1041), perhaps 
also iLtnl\vrpoy (1 Tim. ii. 6) would lead us to 
the idea of substitution implied in the preposi- 
tion, and so the Antichrist would be a ** false 
Christ," claiming to be the true. But every 
such claim involves rivalry, and therefore an- 
tagonism ; and the stress laid by St. Paul on 
his being 6 hrructlfitvos (2 Thess. ii. 4) might 
naturally blend that thought also with the other, 
and might, in course of time, come to supersede 
it. Speaking generally, the tradition of early pa- 
tristic writings is in favour of the former, that 
of later schools of interpretation in favour of 
the latter view. 

3. The exegesis of the passages which speak of 
Antichrist in the N. T. does not full within the 
scope of this paper. But it is difficult to trace 
what does so fall — ^the successive phases of men's 
thoughts about Antichrist in the first eight cen- 
turies of the Church — without going back to the 
origines out of which they sprang. And these 
are to be found (a) in the prophecies of Daniel, 
of which all the Apocalyptic utterances of the 
N. T. are more or less reproductions. Whatever 
view we may take of the date and authorship of 
those predictions, they led men in the first cen- 
tury to think not only of the " fourth beast," 
which might symbolise, like the other beasts, a 
kingdom, but of the " little horn " with " the 
eyes of a man," and a " mouth speaking great 
things " (Dan. vii. 8, 20, viii. 9), " making war 
against the saints," which could hardly be 
understood of other than an individual ruler. 
The more detailed prophecies of Dan. viii. 23, 
xi. 36-39, which spoke of the king of " fierce 
countenance " who should " destroy the mighty 
and holy people," and "stand up against the 
Prince of princes," who should *' exalt himself, 
and magnify himself above eveiy god/* and 
"speak marvellous things against the God of 
Gods," pointed in the same direction. In the 
time of the Maccabees they seemed to find a fulfil- 
ment in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, but 
the words remained in their dim, dark awful- 
ness, as if still waiting for one who should em- 
body them more completely. The sayings in 
which Our Lord claimed for Himself the name 
of the Son of Man, and spoke of His coming as 
such "in the clouds of Heaven," and referred 
to the " abomination of desolation " (Matt. xxvi. 
64, xxiv. 15), drew men*s thoughts to the j»as- 
sages of Daniel in which they were named (Dan. 
vii. 13, 14, ix. 27), and so to those othera in 
which the enemy of the Messiah and the holy 
people had been portrayed. (6) Partly in the 
recorded prophecies of the N. T. already referred 
to, |)artly in the unrecorded utterances of the 
prophets who in every Church were telling their 
true or false visions of things to come, the 
thought of a personal Antichrist, the rival and 
enemy of the true Messiah, took shape and grew. 
Men either identified or connected him with the 
" man of sin," the " lawless one " of 2 Thess. ii., 
with the " beast " of Rev. xiii., with the " false 
prophet " of Rev. xvi. 13, xix. 10, xx. 10. There 
was enough in all this at once to excite and to 


baffle cariosity. We cannot wonder that it 
tHould hare been fruitful in hot thoughts and 
ferered dreama. (c) The influence of Jewish 
traditions about Antichrist on the current belief 
of the Christian Church must be looked on as 
infinitesinaallj small. The wild and obscene 
legends cited by Eisenmenger (ii. p. 707 et, 8eq.\ 
about an Armillus who is to present himself to 
the Edomites ( = Romans = Christians), and be 
receired br them as a Messiah, who is to be a 
terrible monster, with red hair and green feet, 
twelve ells in height and the same in breadth, 
first slaying the true Chnst, and then slain by 
Him on His return from Heaven, does not go 
further back than the 15th century, and even if 
it be supposed to embody traditions of an earlier 
date, the total absence of any reference to such 
views in patristic literature may be accepted as 
a proof that the Christian conjectures, however 
&nciful, were not derived from Judaism. 

4. Three ways of dealing with the name of 
Antichrist are traceable in patristic literature. 
(1) Xs St. John, while pointing to the Antichrist, 
had yet spoken of " many " who might so be 
called, and bad given, as a characteristic note of 
Antichrut, the denial of ^ the Father and the 
Son," the denial, also, that " Jesus Christ was 
come in the flesh " (1 John ii. 18, 22, iv. 3^ so 
Ut«r writers did not shrink from applying the 
term to the heretical teacher with whom they 
happened for the time being to be in controversy. 
So TertuUian applies it to Marcion (i4cfc. Marc, 
iii. 8), Athanasius to Constantius (£//i8/. aj iSb/iV. 
Vit. Agent, pp. 842, 852). Gregory the Great 
sees at least the ** forerunner of Antichrist *' in 
John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople, 
because he claimed, as others had done before him, 
the title of ^ Universal {piicovii*viKh%) Bishop *' 
(Epist. vii. 33). This was, of course, more or less 
rhetorical, as men talk now of the " footfalls of 
the coming Antichrist," and did not tie those 
who used it to any deflnite identification. We 
shall find (infra) the same writers speaking of 
the Antichrist as still future. (2) The two great 
wTittT* of the Alexandrian School seem to turn 
away altogether trom this and other regions of 
apocalyptic study. Clement makes no mention 
of the Antichrist at all ; Origen, after his fashion, 
]riasscs into the region of generalizing allegory. 
Trie Antichrist, the " adversary," is ** false doc- 
trine ;" the temple of God in which he sits and 
f tjlt» himself, is the written Word ; men are to 
riee when he comes, to " the mountains of truth" 
(/Am. 20 in 3falt.), Gregory of Nyssa {Orat. 
11. 0. Lum/m.) follows in the same track. So 
:':ir aji ihU showed more than a geneml shrink- 
•ci fnim the whole question, it involved the 
4Mum|tiun th.Ht what others had spoken rheto- 
:iL:*iiy was in fact the application of a true 
eie^cfi^ to a |jarticnlar instance. 

.*). Neither of these methods however, was 
eulcul.ite<l to satisty those who looked to the 
.Vf«/C3ilyptic language of the N. T. as a re;il uu- 
1-ilin^ of the future, and we have to note accor- 
iibzlr ('T) the various conjectures that ai>|ieared 
:'rum time to time as to the origin and charac- 
t<ri»tic features of the individual Antichrist, 
(i) Koremoat among these is that which iden- 
Uh<d him with Nero. Many elements of thought 
(robably entered into this conjecture. The at- 
irmpt of Caligula to set up bis statue in the 
Tempia of Jcnualem, the tendency to the deifi- 



cation of dead and even of living Emperors, had 
led men to look in that quarter for the appear- 
ance of the last great rivalry with the living 
God. Even the very title of Augustus in its 
Greek form Se^oords, would suggest that it 
implied an exaltation of him who claimed it over 
every other a^fieurfia. And the impression left 
by Nero's monstrous vices, as well as by his per- 
secution of the Christians, on the minds of men, 
led them, as they read of one who " was, and is 
not, and yet is, of one who was " wounded to 
death," but whose " deadly wound was healed ''' 
(Kev. xvii. 8, xiii. 3), to expect his return from 
the grave, armed with a mightier power for 
evil. Incompatible as the notion was with any 
systematic interpretation of the Apocalypse, it 
took root, and only slowly died out. It appears 
in its fullest form in the commentary on the 
Apocalypse ascribed to Yictorinus of Pettau 
(a.d. 290). Nero was to rise from the dead, 
was to be accepted by the Jews aa the Messiah 
("Christum qualem meruerunt"), was to try 
to lead the saints, '* non ad idola colenda, sed 
ad circumcisionem " {Bibii Max. iii. p. 420). 
The uncertainty which hung over the burial- 
place of Nero, the Sibylline verses which had 
spoken of the coming of a " matricide " tyrant 
and persecutor, tended to deepen the impres- 
sion (Lactant. De Mortib. Persecut. c. 2). Per- 
haps the belief that St. John, the Seer of the 
Apocalypse, was himself not dead but sleeping, 
reserved to rise again as one of the two prophets 
of his own vision, or in addition to the two that 
were identified with Enoch and Elijah (lie v. xi.), 
in order that he might bear his witness against 
the risen Nero, risen with mightier power and 
more monstrous claims, fell in with the popular 
belief. Such a belief could not, of course, be a 
lasting one. Lactantius speaks of it as held only 
by "deliri quidam" (/. c). Jerome (Comm. in 
Dan.^ xi. 17) and Augustine {De Cic. Dei, xx. 13) 
mention it as still held by "many." Othei 
interpretations were, however, scarcely less fan- 
tastic, (h) Starting partly from the omission 
of the tribe of Dan from the list of the tribes of 
Israel " sealed " in the Apocalypse (Rev. vii.), 
partly from the words which spoke of him as an 
"adder" and a "serpent" (Gen. xlix. 17), men 
came to dream that the Antichiist would be born 
of that tribe (Hip()olytu$, p. 7 ed. Lagarde ; Are- 
thas, Cat, in Bev. tit. ; Pseudo-Athanas. Quaest. 
ad Antioch. 108 ; Theodorct, Qu. iii. in Xum. p. 
142). Cyril of Jerusalem, who gives the greater 
part of one of his Catecfteses (xv.) to the subject, 
though seeing, after the fashion of his time, 
" forerunners of Antichrist " in the Arian teachers, 
declares, as speaking in the name of the Church, 
(giving, I. tf., the accepted interpretation of his 
timeX that the Antichrist himself will be a 
magician, who, starting with being one of eleven 
claimants to it, should, by his enchantments, 
seize on the Roman Empire, take the title of 
Christ, deceive the Jews, assume a tone of philan- 
thropy, and finally show himself murderous and 
cruel towards all men, and especially towards 
the Christians. He is to come when Jerusalem 
shall be utterly destroyed, and is to present 
himself as the son of David who is to rebuild it, 
and in that Temple will he sit claiming and 
receiving the worship which is due to God. This 
shall go on for the appointed time of three years 
and a half, and then he shall be slain by the Son 



of God, on His second advent from Heaven 
{Catech, zr.). The Pseudo^Athanasius {Quaest. 
ad Aniioch, 108), while adopting the notion that 
the Antichrist would come from Dan (quoting, as 
a proof, Deut. xxxiii. 22), and identifying 
" Bashan " there spoken of with Scythopolis, and 
therefore looking to Galilee as the place <^ his 
appearing, mentions, as an ''old wife's tale," 
which he thinks it worth while refuting, the 
belief that he would appear in Kgypt, and have 
but one hand and one eye, and with them work 
miracles, the one miracle of raising the dead 
excepted, (c) The line taken by Chrysostom 
and the commentators who follow in his track, 
is, on the whole, less wild. As they interpret 
Scripture, the Antichrist is not to lead men 
either to idolatry or Judaism, but to simple 
Atheism. He will claim homage as the mightiest 
man, will sit, not in the temple at Jerusalem 
nor in any local building, but in the whole 
Ecclesia, as demanding worship (Chrysost. and 
Theophylact. in 2 Thess, iu). (d) Theodoret, 
however, goes a step further, and sees in Anti- 
christ an absolute incarnation of 6 iLvrlOtos 
iulfivv, born as man in the tribe of Dan, and 
calling himself the Christ {Epit. Divin, Decrd. c. 
xxiii. p. 300, Qu. iii. in Num, p. 142). [E. H. P.] 

oiavlrai = Adversaries of Mary, Epiphan. Haer. 
Ixxxix.). The name given to those in Arabia in 
the latter part of the 4th century, who (in oppo- 
sition to the KoWopiZidviZts) maintained the 
novel 6upiK>sition advanced at that time by 
Bonosus of Sadica, and by Helvidius, that " our 
Lord's Brethren** were children born by the 
Blessed Virgin to Joseph after our Lord's birth. 
The controversy arose out of the then prevailing 
reverence for virginity, which in its extreme 
form had led certain women, originally from 
Thrace, but dwelling in Arabia, to celebrate an 
idolatrous festival in honour of the Virgin, by 
taking certain cakes (jcoXXitpiZts) about in 
chariots, and then solemnly offering them to 
her and consuming them, in imitation of the 
Lord's Supper, or (more probably) of the pagan 
worship of Ceres. The reaction from this super- 
stition led to the existence of the sect spoken of 
in this article, which, contemporaneously with 
the controversy carried on by St. Jerome and by 
others against Helvidius and Bonosus, the lite- 
rary supporters of the hypothesis, was led to en- 
deavour to cut away all pretence for the Colly- 
ridian su{>erstition by adopting their view and so 
denying its very groundwork. The question re- 
specting that controversy itself is discussed in 
the Dictionary of tfie Bible^ under Brothers and 
James. And for its literary history, see under 
Bonosus, Helvidius, Hieronymus. [A. W. H.] 

ANTI0CHU8. (1) Bishop of Ptolkmais, 
flourished c. 401 a.d. The reputation he gained 
as a preacher in his provincial city awoke in him 
the desire of displaying his oratorical powers in 
a wider field. He accordingly left Ptolemais 
and settled at Constantinople, where his fine 
voice and appropriate action, together with the 
eloquent and perspicuous character of his dis- 
courses, soon attracted large auditories, by whom, 
like his great contemporary John, he was sur- 
named "The Golden-mouthed." Having amassed 
considerable wealth, he returned to his deserted 
aee. where he employed his leisure in composing 


a long treatise "against avarice.** He took a 
zealous part in the proceedings against Chryso- 
stom, and is reckoned by Palladins among his 
bitterest enemies. He died in the reign oi 
Arcadius, befoi*e A.D. 408, and, according to 
Nicephorus, his end, in mmmon with all the 
enemies of Chrysostom, was miserable. Besides 
the treatise "against avarice," already men- 
tioned, a homily on " Tha Cure of the Biinid Man" 
is mentioned. With the exception of a sentence 
quoted by Theodoret, Dial. 2, and a longer frag- 
ment given in the Catena on St. John xix. p. 443, 
his works have perished (Socr. vi. 11 ; Soz. viii. 
10; Niceph. xiii. 26; Gennadius in Catalog.; 
Pallad. Dialog, p. 49 ; Fabr. BiN. Graec. ix. 259). 
(2) A monk of the monastery of St. Saba ; 
born at Medosaga, 20 miles from Ancyra in 
Galatia (Lambec. iii. p. 140). He flourished in 
the reign of the Emperor Heraclius, and wit- 
nessed the capture and sack of Jerusalem by 
Chosroes A.D. G14, when the true Cross was 
carried away into Persia as the noblest trophy of 
conquest {Hcmil. cvii. ; Exomolog. sub /n.). 
There is still extant, " if what no one reads 
may be said to be extant" (Gibbon, c xlvi.), a 
voluminous work of his entitled vayi^KTjis rris 
aylas ypa^^s, divided into 130 homilies, each 
enforcing some definite moral duty confirmed by 
passages from Scripture and the writings of the 
fathers. The epistle dedicatory to Eustathius, 
provost of the monastery of Attalia, near his old 
home of Ancyra^ contains an account of the sack- 
ing of the monastery of St. Saba, and the cruelties 
perj^etrated by the Saracens on the monks. It 
closes with an Exomologesis or prayer that God 
would turn away his wrath from Jerusalem 
(Fabric. Bibl. Graec, lib. v. c. 34. Cave, Hist. Lit, 
i. p. 572.) [E. v.] 

ANTIPATER, governor of Cappadocia, a 
friend of St. Basil. When Antipater enters upon 
his province (a.d. 373), Basil writes to excuse his 
attendance on the ground of illness, and to re- 
commend Palladia to his correspondent's protec- 
tion {Ep. 137). At a later date some playful 
lettera pass between them (Ep. 18G, 187). [L.] 

ANTIPATER C^yrixarpos) flourished about 
4C0 A.D. He succeeded Constantine, who was 
present at the council of Chalcedon 451, as bishop 
of Bostra in Arabia. He was the author of a Befu- 
tation of Eusebius* Apology for Origen, entitled 
i^ri/^^riffis. Some fragments of the flrst book of 
this are extant in the acts of the second Niceue 
council (Labbe, Concil. vii. 367), and more co- 
piously in the *lipbi irapciXAifXa of Joannes Da- 
mascenus. This work was of such authority 
that it was ordered to be publicly i-ead in 
churches, in the hope of checking the growth of 
Origen's doctrines (Cotelerius Monument. Eccl. 
Grace, vol. iii. p. 362). Sermons are attributed 
to him on the first chapter of St. Luke, of which a 
I^tin translation is printed in Combefis Biblioth, 
Concion. vol. \'ii. p. 106, on rh &yta 8eo^(£ycia, 
and on the woman with the issue of blood, which 
is also quoted in the acts of the same council 
(Labbe, Concil. vii. 208 ; Cave, Bist. Litt. i. p. 
447 ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x. p. 274). [E. V.] 

ANTIPOPES, claimants to the popedom in 
opposition to the lawful popes. There wert 
eight such during the first eight centuries, soma 
owing their elevation to the existence of con- 
flicting parties at Rome, others intruded into the 




bj the ciril power. A fuller account of 
tbem, with the authorities, is giren under their 
respective names. 

1. KOVATIANUS, elected and consecrated in 
the middle of the 3rd century, after the Decian 
persecution, in opposition to Cornelius, by the 
party called Cathari (the opponents of the re- 
admi«»ion of the lapsi into the Church), and 
throagh the influence of Koratus of Carthage, 
who was then at Rome. Hence originated the 
•ect of the Novatians. [Cornelius; Nova- 


2. Felix, intruded into the see of Rome by 
the Elmperor Constantius, after the banishment 
of Liberius, a.d. 355, and apparently retaining 
his position as a riral bishop, supported by his 
party, after the return of the latter. Though 
appearing in the Roman Calendar as a lawful 
pope, a saint and martyr, his place, according to 
all ancient historical evidence, is properly among 
the antipopes. [Liberius ; Felix.] 

3. Ursincs (or Ursicinus), a deacon of Rome, 
elected and ordained as Pope, on the death of 
Liberius, a.d. 366, probably by the party who 
had supported that Pope, in opposition to Da- 
■MMis, elected and ordained by the party of 
Felix. After much riot and bloodshed, the party 
of DamaKUs prevailed, though Ursinus, banished 
by Jnrentus, the prefect of the city, in 366, 
recalled and again banished by the Emperor 
Valentinian in 367, continued to agitate Rome 
through his partizans during the life of his rival, 
whom he survived. The claim of Damasus to 
be the true Pope rests upon the supposed priority 
of his election and consecration, which is as- 
serted by the contemporary Jerome and Kufinus, 
an i by Socrates, his claim being recognized also 
by St. Ambrose, by councils held twelve years 
afterwards at Rome and in 381 at Aquileia, and 
by the general subsequent consent of the Church. 
It should be observed, however, that the two 
ante'! contemporary Luciferian presbyters, Mar- 
cellinus and Faustinus, in their detailed account 
of the»e eventis represent Ursinits as having been 
elect««l fir^t, and hence Damasus as the antipope, 
as well as responsible for the ensuing tumult 
and bloodshed. But their testimony, due pos- 
4ii;ly to party feeling acrainst Damasus (of per- 
secution under whom they complained) is greatly 
outweighed by that on the other side. [Dama- 
RC?; URSixrs,] 

4. KuLALil'S, elected and consecrated simulta- 
D*ou>.|y with Boniface L in December, a.d. 418, 
X' Kucce.<»or to Pope 2U>zimns. The disputed 
♦ I-'tiun was eventually settled by a rescript of 
xh*- Emperor Honorius in the April of the follow- 
1(1^ year, banishing Eulalius, and putting Boni- 
(urt iu possession jof the see. [Ik)NiFACK ; Eula- 


5. LArRKxnus, elected and consecrated on 
the Kime day with Symmachus, as successor to 
Anasta^iu.'t II., Dec. 22, A.D. 499. The circum- 
stances of the time in this case intensified the 
feudii u^ual on the election of a pope. It was 
th* period of the forty years* schism between 
home and Constantinople due to the excommu- 
uic:ition of Acacius by Pope Felix, in connexion 
with the Monophysite controversy. Laurentius 
WM supporte'i by the party, headed by Festus 
orr Fausttts Niger, the Patrician, which favoured 
the coDciliatorr attitude towards the East as- 

by the deceased Pope: Symmachus was 

supported by the party of rigid orthodoxy. Tu- 
mults and bloodshed, as was usual in such cases, 
followed the double election, till the matter was 
finally settled by the intervention of the Gothic 
King Theodoric, himself an Arian, who decided 
in favour of Symmachus, on the ground both of 
majority of votes and priority of election. [Sym- 
machus; Laurentius.] 

6. DiOfiCORUS, a deacon of Rome, elected by 
his party and consecrated on the same day with 
Boniface II., as successor to Pope Felix III. (or 
IV.), Sept. 21, A.D. 530. Happily his death on 
the 14th of October prevented in this case the 
customary riots, leaving Boniface undisputed 
Pope, who excommunicated his deceased rival. 
The anathema was revoked by the next Pope 
Agapetus. [Boniface II.] 

7. VioiLius, intruded by the imperial power 
into the see of Rome, while canonically fall. 
Belisarius, having got possession of Rome, a.d. 
537, was commissioned by the Empress Theodora 
to depose the reigning Pope Silverius, and put 
the deacon Vigilius, in his place ; which was 
accordingly done. Silverius having lived nearly 
a year after his expulsion, thus uncanonically 
effected, Vigilius is properly regarded as a mere 
antipo|)e during that period, whatever his claim 
to the lawful passession of the see afterwards. 
[Silverius; Vigilius.] 

8. EuOENius, elected and ordained Pope in Sep- 
tember, A.D. 654, during the lifetime of Martin I., 
the reigning Pope (who had been in the previous 
year violently deposed by the Emperor Constans), 
and hence, like Vigilius, to be reckoned an anti- 
pope at the commencement of his reign. The 
reason of Martin's deposition was his resolute 
opposition to the Monothelite heresy, then domi- 
nant at Constantinople, and favoured by the 
emj)erors. His death in September, a.d. 655, 
left Eugenius in undisputed passession of the 
see, his acceptance by the clergy and people 
being considered to have sup[)lied the place of a 
regular election. [3Iartin ; Eugenius.] 

[J. B Y.] 

ANTITACTAE. This name is given by Cle- 
ment of Alexandria {'^trom. iii. 526-9) to an ob- 
scure libertine sect, apparently of Gnostic origin. 
Gotl, the Creator of the universe, they said, is our 
Father by nature, and all things that He has 
made are good ; but one of those who owed their 
existence to Him afterwards sowed the tares and 
engendered evil ; and by entangling us all in evil 
hft sft us in opposition to Go<l. For this reason, 
they declared, " in order to avenge the Father, we 
' too oppose' ourselves to the will of the second 
I [maker] (cf. Ep. Plat. ii. 312 k) ; and since he 
baid * Thou shalt not commit adultery,* we com- 
\ mit adultery in order to break his command- 
\ mcnt." Other particulars may be gleaned from 
' the refutation which follows. The Antitactae 
I claimed to obey "the Saviour" alone. They 
strung together verses picked out of the pro- 
phets, interpreting, Clement says, in a literal 
manner what was written allegorically. The 
\ instance given is singular. They appropriated 
to themselves the words of the raurmurers in 
Mai. iii. 15, "They opi>osed themselves to God 
and were saved," inter|>olating before " God " 
the epithet "shameless" (t^ &vat8c7: bat ? 
&yeXf«^ tncrcilfss.) Clement further accuses 
them of ** perverting the Scriptures to theii 




own pleasures by the tone of their roice," '^al- 
tering certain accents and stops." 

The ascription of creation to the " good '* 
'* Father " would dissociate the Antitactae from 
all properly Gnostic sects, did not Clement twice 
give the name *' Creator " (Demiurge) to the 
being to whom they professed to oppose them- 
selves. This being somewhat resembles ** the 
tvil one " of the Clementine Homilies (ii. 38 ff.), 
at least in his relation to the Old Testament ; 
but the libertine theory of morals recalls rather 
the Cainite section of the Ophites. 

Clement begins his description with the words 
" Certain others whom we also call Antitactae ;" 
and the name may have been extemporised to 
denote the favourite idea of the sect, " opposi- 
tion." Clement himself uses the verb (&vti- 
rdffffofuu) often in the preceding pages for the 
"opposition" to the Demiurge cultivated by the 
ascetic group* of Gnostics. Theodoret (^Haer, Fab, 
i. 16: cf. V. 9, 17) chiefly copies Clement, and 
evidently had no other authority for his account 
of the Antitactae. [H.] 


ANT0NIANU8, a bishop who wrote, a.d. 
252, to Cyprian, to assure him of his adherence to 
him and to Cornelius against Novatian ; but who 
was afterwards much shaken by a letter from 
Novatian justifying the purity of his doctrine 
and accusing the laxity of the pope Cornelius. 
Cyprian (Ep, 55) takes great pains to show him 
the excellence of Cornelius's life and policy and 
the danger of Novatian's rigour, apparently with 
success, as Antonian appears in Ep. 70 as one of 
the Numidian bishops to whom that synodical 
letter (Cone. Carth. sub. Cyp. de Bap. 1) is ad- 
dressed. [E. W. B.]. 

ANTONINUS, surnamed Honoratus, by 
Gennadius (De Script, c. 95), a bishop of Con- 
stantia in Africa, fl. about a.d. 437, during the 
persecution of the orthodox by Genseric. He was 
the author of a Consolatoria et Exhortatoria ad 
Labores pro Christo ferendos Epistolay addressed 
to a certain Arcadius, who, having been pre- 
viously a friend of Gcnseric's, had been banished 
for the faith, and was afterwards martyred. This 
letter breathes a truly Christian heroism, and 
deserves perusal. (^t&/. Pat. Colon. 1618, tom. v. 
p. 640; Baron. Ad Ann. 437 j Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 
p. 426.) [E. v.] 



ANIDNINUS PIUS, Emperor, a.d. 138- 
161. The character of this prince as loving 
righteousness and mercy, choosing rather, in his 
own noble words, " to save the life of one citizen 
than to slay a thousand foes," showed itself, as 
in other things, so also in his treatment of the 
Christians of the empire. Hadrian had checked 
the tendency to persecution by imposing severe 
penalties on false accusers (Just. Mart. Apol. 
i. c. 68). In some way or other, Antoninus was 
led to adopt a policy which was even more fa- 
vourable to them (Xiphilin., Epit. Dion. Cass. 
1. 70, p. 1173). Melito, writing his Apologia to 
Marcus Aurelius (Euseb. //. E. iv. 26), speaks of 
edicts which Antoninus had issued to the people 
of Larissa, Thessalonica, Athens, and to the 
Greeks at large, forbidding any new and violent 
(jjLJlZ\v vtwr^pii^p) against the Chris- 

tians. A more memorable proof of his tolerance 
is found, if the document be genuine, in the 
decree addressed to the General Assembly of the 
proconsular province of Asia, at a time when 
the Christian Church was exposed to outrages of 
all kinds {irphs rh Koiifhv r^f 'Ktriasy. It speaks 
in admiring terms of the innocence of the dhris- 
tians, declares the charges against them to be 
unproved, bids men admire the stead flEtstness and 
faith with which they met the earthquakes and 
other calamities that drove others to despair, 
ascribes the persecution to the jealousy which 
men felt against those who were truer wor- 
shippers of God than themselves. Unfortunately, 
however, the weight of evidence preponderates 
against the genuineness of the edict. The two 
texts which are found, one in Eusebius (^H. E. iv. 
13), the other appended to the First Apology of 
Justin, differ in many points. Eusebius, who 
ascribes it to Antoninus rius, gives a copy which 
purports to come from Marcus Aurelius, and 
that attached to the Apology is clearly an ad- 
dition by a later hand. Melito, whom Eusebius 
represents as referring to this edict (ff.E.iv, 
26), in reality fails (as Neander observes) to 
quote it and falls back upon others far less di- 
rectly to his purpose than this would have been, 
had he known it. And internal evidence, too, 
tends to the same conclusions. It is too good, 
too Christian, to have come from a heathen 
emperor. On the whole, therefore, we are com- 
pelled to follow Scaliger, and Reimar, and Dodwell 
and Thirlby, and Jortin and Milman, and Keander 
and Gieseler, and a host of others, in rejecting 
it as the forgery of some Christian of the latter 
half of the 2nd century, trying to embody in his 
own high-coloured language the substance of 
decrees which had really been issued in favour 
of the Christians, rather than Tillemont and 
Lardner in accepting it as really coming from 
Antoninus, or Valesius, the editor of Eusebius, 
in assigning it to Marcus Aurelius. The last 
supposition is indeed the most improbable of alU 
as it is absolutely inconsistent with the general 
policy of that emperor [Aurelius]. The fullest 
discussion of it is to be found in Lardner*s 
WorkSy vol. vii. p. 383 ; Testimonies of Ancient 
HeathenSy ch. xiv. In any case it is natural to 
connect the more lenient policy, which there is 
no doubt that Antoninus adopted, with the me- 
morable Apologia which Justin addressed to him. 
Confining ourselves to its bearing on the cha- 
racter of the emperor, we note (1) that there had 
been at least the threat of persecution even unto 
death (c 68) ; (2) that it is written throughout 
in a tone of manifest respect as to men not un- 
worthy of the epithets that were attached to 
their names (" Pius " to Antoninus, " philo- 
sopher" to Yerissimus and Lucius); (3) that 
the mere fact of the dedication and, apparently, 
presentation of such an address implies a tole- 
rance which had not been often found in pre 
ceding emperors ; (4) that even the forged 
document, if it be such, shows that there was a 
certain verisimilitude in the ascription of such 
a document to him. [E. H. P.] 

ANTONINUS, 27th bishop of Jerusalem. 
succeeded Maximus II. between A.D. 1^^ and 
A.D. 190. His name appears in the Chronicon ol 
Eusebius, and is given by Gcorgius Syncellv 
and Nicephorus; but though it is necessary ir 



omplcta the total BDmbsr af biihop* iMiacd bj 
bim. it ii omitted in tba Hiitorf of EuKbini, 
T. 11, piohablr throngh nn error of the tran- 
Kriben (Cliuloa, Fattt Somani ) Ta1»in>, ad 
tueb. //. E. 1. 1). [E. v.] 

ANTONIUS, biibop of Gekna in the pro- 
rioM of tbe HellapoDt. Initigaled bj Notorial, 
be procacdol agaiiut tfa« Maccdouiaiu with lach 
KTCritf, tbal, finding tbtir pmitioD iDtolerable, 

e depiiTed tbcm of their cha 



AKTONTDS, St. (Abbu), ii tanned bj Atbi- 
nuini " tbe fanndei of uceticiim " and big life t, 
"model for monki " ( Pnu/. Vit. St. Aat.). In 
thii aipect ai topical of tbe cnmitic life, hii 
aua* deurra more than a pauing meatior 
paciallf ai we hare a tolerably complete bii 

27), and then < 
mas of God." I 

tbe gimi age of 
diiciplei, Amatbu Knd 
-erod t 


was followed bf crowdi ai " the 

Bnt he »0D returned lo the con. 

)f bii «11, and there died, al 

I of tbe 1 

Aatonf, aa he ii commonlj called In England, 
wai bora abont 2S0A.D., at Coma, on tbe border* 
of Upper Egypt (Soi. Jliit. i. 13). By bii 
pureota, who were wealthy Cbriitiani, he wai 

diligent, he ihowed no tut« either Tor leamiDg 
or for boyiib gam«> (Atb. Vit, S, Ant.; Aog. de 
Doct. M i'Ttil.}. Sii moDlbi after the death of 
bii parenti, being then 18 yean of age, he 
chaaoed to hear in church the wordi "If thou 
■■ill b* perfect," At, and rewlved to obej tbe 
prettpt Qlerally, reserring onlj a imall portion 
far bii liiter. Retaming into the church he 
heard, - Tike no Ihonghl for the morrow." On 
ibii be roolved to commend her to the cire 

property, without eiception, to the poor (Ath, 

kt that Ii 


Thej describe h 
who " law and welcomed the approach of frienda." 
He bad alwayi eipreaaad a dread of being em~ 
burned, ae wu itill cuitomarj in Egypt ; and 
tbe place of hii upnltnre wu kept Hcrtt by the 
two eye-witnauei of bi> death. To them b* 
bequeathed hit hair-ibirti and tbe reit of hi* 
worldly goodi, hi) two woollen tuniu and tbe 
rough cloak on which he tlept, to bUbop Sera- 
pion and St. Athanaiiui (Ath. Vil. 3. Ant.). 

The fame of Antony ipread raiddly through 
Chriitendom ; and the eSect of big example in 
inducing Chriniani, eapecially in tbe Eait, to 
embrace the monastic life ia dtKiibed by hij 
biographer! ai incalculable. Id the neat centuiT 
he began to be venerated ai a Saint by the Ore^ 
Church, and ia the ninth by the Latin. He li 
laid to be the author of Seven EpitUet to certain 
Eailern monuteriea, which have been translated 
from the Egyptian into the Greek (Hieron. ib 
Script. 88), and are now eitaut in Latin (Cstc, 
Hill. Lit.). Though by all accounU far from being 
a learned man (Soi. Hial. i. 1 R i Niceph. Hill. viL 
40 ; Atb. I'tt, S. Ant.), it is hardly consilient with 
the diKoursai ascribed to him to (oppose that ha 
wafl altogether illiterate. To a pagan phijosopbar, 
wondering at hii want of bookn, he replied, ■' Uy 
•■ • ■ philosopher! is Nnlure"{Soc. ffiji. It. 

2 a). 

is inline 

Antony wrol 
behalf of hi 
boldly niso t 

la great 

n his ceil to liie bmiArror in 
id (Soi. it, 31). He wrote 
riui, sub-prefect of Aleiiindria, 

e cells of Anchorites OiocaoritprB) 

lomb, aflerwards in 

tiib ooIt braid and water (the bread of It 
coBtry ii said lo be good for keeping), ai 
uuing forth only lo instrnct tbe multitudes wl 
OL-ked Id irr and bear him ; at other times con 
ineJcntioB was preranted by a huge stcoe at [t 
BTrancc. During the pervecution of Uaiimini 
-- - fallen, t 

ei,ly was. 
obtaining n 

■as lurbidd«) as a 

s of A 

duebvlienn to the emperor 
.a apicaring in »un. W 
erased be withdraw, though 

:Dg the martys in their 
,r^i edict, be per.isled 

only bread end water; ai a role he fasted till 
sunset, sometimes for four days together. Of 
sleep he was equally sparing. His coane rough 
shirt is Slid lo hare lulad him for a lifalime; 

'.ary in wading occaiionally through * river. Yet 
It lired to no onusual age, robust, and in fnll 
' ' ' faculliei to the last. In fact 

Ironbic of bringcing him food, he maile ■ smal 
lieli of wheal, which he cnltiTaled with his owi 
hasds, vorkiDg alio at making mata. From lim' 
■a lime ba raaisitad fats former disciples in th< 
Tliabaid, always, bowarar, declininf ' 

It 335 

lining to f 


He wu 


s presence which, notwithslanding bis low 
re, attracted the attention of itrangera 
in a crowd; not like n wild man of Iha 



arrogate to himself priestly function ; showing, him by his admirers, sometimes of a very puerile 
even in his old age, a marked and studious defer- sort ; as when he b said to have detected on 
ence even to the youngest deacons (Ath.). board-ship a person possessed by an evil spirit 
Antony was evidently a man, not merely of through a bad smell. The water found in 
strong determination, but of ability, and the dis- answer to his prayers by himself and his compa- 
courses, if indeed they are his, which his disciples nions as they journeyed through the desert, need 
record as addressed to themselves and to the pagan not be regarded as supernatural ; and the voice 
philosophers who disputed with him, show that if which guided him in the Thebaid may only mean 
he read little he thought much. He met objec- the voice of conscience. It would indeed be 
tions against the doctrines of the Incarnation and strange, if so lonely an existence did not breed 
the Resurrection as mysterious by the retort that many involuntary and unconscious illusions ; 
the pagan mythology, whether in its grossness still more strange if those whose eyes were 
as apprehended by the vulgar or as the mystical dazzled by the almost more than human self- 
system of philosophers, was equally unreasonable, abnegation of the great eremite had not been 
From their dialectical subtleties he appealed to almost irresistibly led to exaggerate his propor 
facta ; to a Christian's contempt of death and tions viewed through a deceptive haze. Among 
triumph over temptation; and contrasted the the many in whom the marvellous experiences 
decay of pagan oracles and magic with the growth of Antony awoke a longing to renounce the 
of Christianity in spite of persecutions. He is world was Augustine himself (Aug. Conf. viii. G, 
said also to have challenged his opponents to heal 12). 

some demoniacs who were standing by (Ath.). Such a life as this is no subject for indiscrimi- 

Similarly his exhortations to his disciples, if we nate eulogy, still less for supercilious 5neei*!i. 

may trust the account which Athanasins seems There is much to regret ; misdirected zeal, 

to have received from them, were rich in Scrip- talents not made useful as they might have been, 

toral texts, and show an acquaintance with and a morbid dread of contact with the material 

Qreek philosophy. The excellence of the soul, world. But the single minded steadfastness 

he taught, consists in it^ intelligence being in its with which Antony acted up to his sense of duty 

state of nature ; and this, he added, depends on ought to command admiration ; and the circum- 

the intention. He insisted on practical morality ; stances of his age had much to do in deter* 

and, in particular, on strictness of self-examina- mining the course which his devout aspiration! 

tion, with an especial injunction of charity and followed. He is commemorated on January 17th. 

humility (Ath.) : warning his hearers that aus- The other writings attributed to him, beside the 

terity alone was worthless without discretion. Septan Epistolae already mentioned are probably 

But, as is usual with solitaiy ascetics, he fos- spurious. [I. G. S.] 

tered by his teaching and example a morbid self- ^ttttitt ^ox x r * i. vt i.\ i ^ 

consciousness, recommending that a diary should ^ ANUPH (St.) (Anub, or Nub), a monk of 

be kept even of secret thoughts; and the basis |<^^^»« »^ /J}^ fourth century brother of St. 

of his arguments for self-improvement is that Pofmen. (Tillemont, Ecc.Ihst. vii. 192, distin- 

etemal life is worth buying (iyop^CcToi, Ath.) gu»«hes this Anuph from the brother of Poemen, 

at any price. He taught also, that prayer to apparently witnout cause.) When the monai.. 

be perfect must be ecsUtic (Cass. Coll. ix. 31). ^cnes there were devastated by the Mazici, a 

Mingled too with sound and practical advice are ^oonsh tribe, he i-etired with his brother to Tere- 

strange stories of his visions, in which he de- °"t]»»- ^« \ P^^^^ ?5 *»>» asceticism, it is re- 

scribes himself as engaged continually in deadly corded that he and his brother retused t^ see 

conflict with evil spirits manifesting themselves ^J^" e*'^''', nT^oT^^i?'' Z?''^- ^o"^',^^' "^ 

not infrequently in forms more ludicrous than l<^. Sen. 199; P^U Hist l^us. 58; Gr.Inc ap. 

terrible. Such narratives appear simply childish ^?'^- ? ! ^' 'l- ^» ^^» ""''' ^^ ' ^^' ^*p: >"' l^'' 
and preposterous to a less imaginative age ; and ^*^ -"**'• *** ^*^' "• ^* ^'J 
may be imputed not without probability to the ANYSIUS, bishop of Tiiessalonica, sac- 
morbid action of a restless intellect in the silence ceeded his master Ascholius, appointed his vicar 
and loneliness of the desert. Still they may in Illyria, by Pope Damasus, 383— an office 
fairly be taken as an expression, however gro- continued to him by Popes Siricius, Anastasios, 
tesque, of latent truths, as an attempt to and Innocent (Holstenius, delect. Homan. Romae, 
realise the insidious force of evil tendencies. 1662, pp. 43, 45). On his appointment, Ambrose 
In one passage Antony draws a striking and wrote both to him and the clergy of Macedonia, 
beautiful contrast between the uproar of the expressing his joy that there had not been a 
demons who assailed him and the awful stillness moment's doubt as to Ascholius' successor (Am- 
of the angel hovering over the host of Sennacherib brose, Ep. xv. xvi.). On Chrysostom's condem- 
by night (Ath.) nation, Anysius assembled the Macedonian 
Beyond the personal encounters with demons, bishops and drew up a synodical lettei to Pope 
and a special faculty of exorcising them from Innocent, detailing all that had been done, and 
others, it is not clear how far and in what manner declaring his resolution to abide by the decision 
Antony believed himself able to work miracles, of the Roman Church, 4fifityuy rfi Kpitrti rw 
To Martianus, a military prefect, who came pray- 'Pttfuxiuy (Pallad. 26). He wrote to Chrysostom 
ing for his assistance, he answered, " Ask not early in 405, expressing his disapprobation of all 
of me ; ask of God in Christ, and thy child shall the acts of his enemies. Chrysostom sent letters 
be healed." ** Any pure heart," he said ou an- in return to him and to the orthodox bishops of 
other occasion, when addressed as a prophet, Macedonia, early in 406, by Evethos, commend- 
<* can foretell things to cone : " and he warned ing the vigour and courage with which he had 
his disciples against paying any attention if evil acted (Chrys. Ep. clxii. clxiii.). Anysius was 
spirits oflered to predict the rising of the Nile, canonized, and stands in the Roman martyrolo^ 
Miracolons powers, howerer, were ascribed to IX>c 30. [£. V.j 


A0RATU8 (Ireiu 55 f. ; cf. 54). [Valen- 
Tixrs; £piPiiA2f£&] [H.] 

APATOB (Iren. 24). [Valentinus.] [H.] 

APELLES, a Gnostic, the most famous and 
orii^aal of Marcion's disciples. According to 
Tertaliian (De Praescr. 30 ; cf. De Came Chr, 1) 
he had to ** withdraw from the pmence of his 
most holy master,*' evidently at Rome, owing to 
an act of incontinence, and went to Alexandria. 
Atler some years, the statement proceeds, he 
returned and attached himself to a virgin named 
Philumene, who subsequently became a prosti- 
tute. TertuUijin's aridity in accepting scandal, 
especially of an unclean kind, when the subject 
IS a heretic or a pagan, must throw some doubt 
on this account ; and it might be suspected that 
there is some confusion with the similar story of 
Marcion at Sinope [Mabcion], with which Ter- 
tuUian was not acquainted. On the other hand 
he had good opportunities of knowing the recent 
hiitory of Roman Christianity ; and there is a 
clear reference to the same occurrence in the 
anoavmouj [Ps. Tert.] Lihelius c. Omn. Haer. 19, 
vhich is one of the authorities (17) for Marcion's 
inb»conduct. As nothing to the discredit of 
Apelles is recorded by Epiphanius or Philastrius, 
the author of this little treatise probably had 
here independent information ; and there is suffi- 
cient evidence (cf. R. A. Lipsius, Zur Qu^len* 
kritik d. Epifh. 33 f.) that he was a Roman 
chnrchman contemporary with TertuUian. Yet 
s local tradition more than half a century after 
the event, though doublv attested, must be re- 
ceived with hesitation when it records a scanda- 
lous story unsupported by other evidence. Apelles' 
{•artial *Mesertion" of Marcion's doctrine ('* Apel- 
W discijralus et postea desertor ipsius," Tert. 
Df Oirne Chr, 1 ; " Apelli ceterisque desertori- 
bos Marcionis," A'lc. J/arc. iii. 11) would help to 
biili up the tradition, which may well have a 
lix*< «'f fact, however distorted. 

The imputation cast on Philumene and her 
relations with Apelles is set aside by abundant 
secative evidence. Rhodon, a younger contem- 
pcranr of his own, and an antagonist of all 
brinches of Marcionism, as quoted by Eusebius 
(//. £. V. 13) represents him merely as " foUow- 
ini; the utterances of a possessed virgin (avo- 
^iypM/fi wapBdrov 8ai/ioy<v(n)s), Philumene by 
name ;" mentioning at the same time that he 
** presumed on his character and his old age " (rp 
ToAiTcif fftfiyvpofi^yos ical rip T^P?) t ^^^ Rho- 
don, though aa Asiatic by birth, had spent some 
of his earlier years at Hume. At a later time 
Hipfiolytas, a Roman ecclesiastic, calls her *'a 
certain Philumene, whom he [Apelles] deems 
a prophetess '* (adv. Baa; z. 20) : the Lib. adv, 
Offui. ifcier. uses identical language. Other pos- 
Mges of Tertnllibn (i>« Praescr, 6 ; />« Came 
Chr, 6; cf. adv. Marc. iii. 11; I>e Anima 36) 
state more distinctly that Apelles believed her 
to be the bearer of revelations from an angel, 
sad a worker of miracles : — "signs and conjuring 
tricks" (praestigiis) he calls them, referring the 
agcBcj to an evil spirit ('* angelum seductionis " 
V€ Pra tacr. 6 ; ** cuius energemate circumven- 
tas " ib. 31 ; c(. Rbod. /. c). Jerome's similar 
report {Com. ui Gal. i. 8 ; cf. Ep. cxzxiii. 4) 
upffly refers to Tertullian. Bunsen {Ifippol. 
1 379) caUa Philomene ''a cUirvoyante." The 
of the term is well illustrated by 



a curious passage printed in the early editions of 
Augustine's book On Heresies (24) as part of the 
article on the ** Severians." It is wholly wanting 
in all the MSS. known to the Benedictine editors, 
and is evidently misplaced. The article on the 
Severians, which follows that on Apelles, owes 
its place and its information exclusively to Epi- 
phanius. Whether Augustine be responsible for 
the doubtful paragraph or not, it can come only 
from an ancient author, and must refer to 
Apelles. The following is the passage : — ** He 
moreover used to say that a certain girl named 
Philumene was divinely inspired to pr^ict future 
events. He used to refer to her his dreams, and 
the perturbations (aestus) of his mind, and to 
forewarn himself secretly by her divinations or 
presages." [Here some words appear to be misB- 
ing.] " The same phantom (phantasmate)," he 
said, ** shewed itself to the same Philumene in 
the form of a boy. This seeming boy sometimes 
declared himself to be Christ, sometimes Paul. 
By questioning this phantom she used to supply 
the answers which she pronounced to her 
hearers (ea respondere quae . . . diceret)." He 
added that she was " accustomed to perform some 
miracles, of which the fallowing was the chief : 
she used to make a large loaf enter a glass vase 
(aropullam) with a very small mouth, and to 
take it out (levare) uninjured with the tips of 
her fingers, and waa content with that food 
alone, as if it had been given her from above 

Apelles lived to old age, as appears from the 
statement of Rhodon (/. c), with whom he had 
an oral controversy. Uhodon is placed by Euse- 
bius in the reign of Commodus, 180-193. The 
manhood of Ajxelles therefore probably began 
not many years before or after 130. About 146 
Marcion had for some time been teaching at 
Rome (Just. Mart. Ap. i. 26). 

Apelles attributed to a book of Manifestations 
(^aycpcicrcit) of Philumene special authority 
(Hipp. /. c), and even, it would seem, had lessons 
from it read publicly (Ps. Tert. /. c. : the passage 
is obscure). When Tertullian says that he trro^ it 
{de Praescr. 30 : cf. Theodoret, ffaer. Fab. i. 25), 
the meaning probably is that Philumene dictated 
to him her oracles. He wrote in his own per- 
son a book or series of books called lieasonings 
{l,vKKoyiatioi\ directed against the Mosaic theo- 
logy (Ps. Tert.). To this work doubtless belonged 
three questions cited by Ambrose {de Parad. 5 
§ 28 f.), probably following Origen, from '* his 
thirty-eighth tome," on subjects connecte<l with 
Gen. ii. The numeral explains a statement ol 
Eusebius {I.e.: cf. Hipp.) that Apelles "com- 
mitted countless impieties against the law of 
I Moses, blaspheming the divine words in a multi- 
' tude of books " (dict ■ir\€i6yvy avyy pafAfidr up). 
As we have seen, he was answered by Rhodon. 
Tertullian too appears himself to have devoted 
to some of his doctrines a special treatise {de 
Carne Chr. 8). 

Whatever cloud may be thought to rest 
upon the youth of Apelles, the picture which 
Rhodon unwittingly furnishes of his old age is 
pleasant to look upon. We see a man unwearied 
in the pursuit of truth, diffident and tolerant, 
resting in beliefs which he could not reconcile, 
but studious to maintain the moral character of 
theology. Always a Marcionist, though consci- 
ously (Philaat. 47) departing so widely from the 


system of Marcion that he was said to hmra St. Angnstina — the immortaUku minor became 

founded a new sect (Orig. ff<nn, in Oen, ii. 2 ; imniortalitas major, or the posse rum mori a wm 

c, Cels, T. 54, kc.\ he appears to have held a posse mori, 

curiously intermediate position in the movements The Aphthartodocetae were subdivided into 

of the time. Origen, while constrained to pro- Ktistolair<ufy or, from their founder, Gajaniiae, 

nounce him a heretic, yet singles him out from who taught that the body of Christ was created 

the other great Onostics as a heretic only in a (rrurrtiy), and AJdisteta£y who asserted that the 

subordinate sense (on Tit. iii. 10, 11:' not so body of Christ, although in itself created, yet by 

Firmilianus in Cyp. Ep. Ixxv. 5). The nature, its union with the eternal Logos became increate^ 

however, of his approximation to the Church and and therefore incorruptible. The most con- 

his doctrines in general will be best considered sistent Monophysite in this direction was the 

with those of his master [Mabcion]. [H.] rhetorician Stephanus Niobes (about 550), who 

APELLES, a monk and priest near Aeons in declared that every attempt to distinguish be- 

the Heptonomi in the fourth century. He had f^**** *^« ^^^T**^^ 7^ *^? ^«°JJ" *1^>T* "^"^ 

been a smith; and a legend, similar to that of ^^P^^fF "^^ ^»f^ "'^f \hey had become 

St. Dunstan, is related of his chasing the devil i*>^^^^^^y/"\ ^^^Jl*^- -^°. ^^Y ""^ ^^ 

with a redhofiron. He was famous for mira- Bar Sudaili extended this prmcip e even to the 

cles (Ruff, (foifon. 15; Pall. /Tis^ Zau5. 60 ; Soz. ^^Tfr^'J I!^ .^V^""*^^^ '^'''^^ ** ^* ^ 

Hist. Yi. 2S ; Kiceph, Hist, xl 34:). [I. G. S.] whoUy absorbed m God. 

' '^ /^ u .J Besides the sources and literature on the 

APHBAATE8, a Persian martyr a.d. 345, Monophysites [MonophysitesJ comp. the dii- 

but distinct from the writer and probably bishop sertations of Gieseler, Monophysitarum variae 

of the same name, whose homilies Dr. Wright de Chnsti Persona Opiniones, 1835 and 1838; 

has edited in the original Syriac. See * Syriac the remarks of Dorner, HiOory of ChrisMogy, 

Martyrology ' in Journal of Sacred Literature for ii. 159^ ff. (Germ, ed.) ; Ebrard, Church and Doc* 

Oct. 1865 and Jan. 1866 ; and the Preface to the tnne History, i. 268 ; and Schaff, Church History, 

Homilies of Aphraates, ed. W. Wright, Lond. iJi. 766 ff. TP. S."! 

1869. [A W. H.] •" -' 

AT>TTT>rkT^TaTTTa u- 1, ^ APTHONIUS. (1) Bishop of Zeugma at 

APHROpiSIUS, an imagmary bishop of ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^j^^ 4th antury.*^ He pa^ his 

"Hellespont,' referred to by " Praedestinatus ^ariv years as a monk in the monasteiyof St 

^** -'• »- *J Publius, on whose death he received the abbacy 

APHTHABSIA(Iren. 107f.). [Ophites.] in conjunction with his brother monk Theotec- 

[ti.] n us, who ruled over the Greek-speaking monks, 

APHTHABTOIXKJETAE (from Maproj, Aphthonius taking the oversight of the Syrians. 

incon-uptible, and 8oic^«, to think), a sect of the After governing the monastery for 40 years, he 

Monophysites, which arose in the 6th century. ^^ «^*»^®»^ ?».*^<\P <>' Zeugma, l>ut made no dif- 

They were also called PAan^«uMtoe, because they J®^®?^® ^\^^^ dress or ascetic mode of life, 

appeared to acknowledge only a seeming body of J° ^'^^ ^vU^r part of his residence at Zeugma he 

Christ, and to border on Docetism, and Julianists, ^™« acquainted with S. Chrysostom who wrote 

from their leader Julian, Bishop of Halicarnassus, ^^ ^»^» together with his brother monks, Chaerew 

and his contemporary Xenajas of Hierapolis. ^nd Theodotus, from Arabissuis A.a 405, 406 

They argued, from the commingling (<nJ7xi/<rts) ^^^IJ\ ^P' *^^- *^*"- » ^T '• . .L 

of the two natures of Christ, that the body of («, 8) There were two leading laymen of this 

our Lord, from the very beginning, became par- "^n^* ^^ Zeugma, to whom Theodoret wrote com- 

taker of the incorruptibility of the Logos, and sending their zeal for the true faith. CTheod. 

was subject to corruptibility merely icar* oUoyo- ^P' ^^^» P* ^^^O L^ ''•J 

jijov. They appealed in proof especially to APHTH0NIU8 CPiipe6vios), one of Manes* 

Christ 8 walking on the sea during his earthly ^^^j^^ disciples. The Greek form of abjuration 

hie. Their opponenU among the Monophysites, , Cotelier's Patres Apost, i. p. 544), Petrua 

the 5er<?rww(fromSeverus, Patriarch of Antioch), gi^uius (Hist. Man. xvi.), and Photius (Contra 

maintained that the body of Christ before the jf^^ j^ 14)^ name Aphthonius, Hierax, and He- 

resurrection was corruptible, and were hence j-aelides as the three interpreters and commenta- 

calleJ Phtf^trtolatrae (^eofrroKdrpai. from ipeap- ^ors of Manes' works (rohs ^wo^iyjinariariis icol 

ros and \drp7,%), oxCorrupticolae, %. e. Worship- itr^yrtriki ru,y ro^nov ovrYpafifiirm'). Philo- 

p«rs of the Corruptible. Both parties admitted gjorgius {Hist. Eccl. iii. 15) relates that Aph- 

the incorruptibility of Chnst s body <xfter the t^onius was the leader of the Manicheans (rwi 

resurrection. The word <p9of>i was generally ^^^ viavix«it^v \6<ravs Tpo€iTr,&s,) in Alexan- 

taken in the sense of corruptibility, but some- ^^ia, and enjoyed a great reputation for wisdom 

times in the sense of mere trailty. This whole ^^ eloquence, until Aetius came from Antioch to 
question is rather one of scholastic subtlety, ^im. Aphthonius was defeated in the dis- 

though not wholly idle, and may be solved in ^^iou, and died a week afterwards. [E. B. C] 
this way : that the body of Christ, before the 

resurrection, was similar in its constitution to APION. The name is properly Egyptian 

the body of Adam before the fall, containing the (see Procop. Pers, i. 8 ; Ross. /nscr. fasc. 2, p. 

germ or possibility of immortality and incor- 62) and derived from the god Apis, after the 

ruptibility, but subject to the influence of the analogy of Anubion, Serapion, etc Thus the 

elements, and was actually put to death by form Apion seems to be more correct than 

external violence, but through the indwelling Appion (as often written), and it b also better 

power of the sinless spirit was preserved from supported (Cotelier on Clem, Recogn, x. 52 ; set 

corruption and raised again to an imperishable however Otto on Justin (?) Coh. ad (rent. § 9). 
life, when — to use an ingenious distinction of (1) The son of Poseidonius (Justin (?) Cbi4. ad» 





Omtt I 9 ; Afrieaniu in Eoieb. Pr. Ev, z. 10, 
pw 490)» a gnimmarian of Alexandria in the first 
oeatozj. Thoagh a native of the Oasitf, he 
eoBoeaied hia E^ptian origin (Clem. Strom, i. 
21) aad afiectad Greek descent (Joseph, c. Ap, ii. 
3). By hia great diligence he acquired the 
•obriqnet fUx^s (Suidaa f. r. ; d Africa- 
lea /. c.% while his many literary triumphs 
woo for him the epithet wKutrroylmis *^ (Plin. 
.V. B. zurii. 19; A. Gell. r. 14; Clem. horn. 
ir. e, zx. 11; aem. Strom, L 21, p. 378). 
Owing to hia somewhat noisy celebrity the 
emperor Tiberias named him " cymbal um 
muAdi" (Plin. N. H. 1 praef.), though as 
Pliny adds, the inordinate and unblushing ranity 
ibr which he was noted (Joseph, c Ap. ii. 12; 
A. Gell. L c.) would hare better entitled him to 
be called **propriae famae tympanum.*' He 
appears to hare been profligate, unscrupulous, 
and sophiattcal (Joseph, c. Ap. it 1, 13; Clem. 
Homi, T. 3 sq.); and his lying stories surpass the 
inventiotta of the most mendacious fabulists 
(A. GelL tU 8; Plin. JV. H, zxz. 6; Aelian, 
B,A.x. 29 ; xi. 40, «{ ;a9) Tc^orc^«Ta<> The 
pretty tale of Androclus and the lion rests on 
kia aatkority, or, perhaps we should say, on his 
invvatioA (A. Gell. r. 14). The great reputation 
which he enjoyed (Ay9)p Soirifii^arot, Tatian, 
md Grate, 38) was chiefly due to hia critical 
labours on Homer, which gained for him a most 
triumphant reception in Greece (Senec Ep. 88 ; 
see Fabrie. Bv4. Gruec. i. 503 sq.). These 
howerer do not fall within the scope of the 
present work, nor would he have been entitled 
to a place here, if he had not been found in 
oeoflict with Jews and Jewish Christians. 

L Hia hostility to Judaism was deep, per- 
■istettt, and unscrupulous (Joaeplu c. Ap. ii. 1-13 ; 
Ceaa. /lotn. ir. 24, r. 2, vd^v 'lovSoiovy 8i' kwx' 
i^imM tx^trrm, r. 27, 29 6 iiXAymt fnff&¥ rh 
*Ie«8al«pr a. r. X.; Clem. Strom, i. 21). As 
Joaephns has preserved direct extracts from 
his writings, besides giring the substance of 
mach more, we are in a pobition to say that these 
descriptions of his attacks are not orercharged. 
These attacks were contained in two works 
especially ; in his Egyptian History (^Aiyvw- 
Ttacd) eonpriscd in five books (A. Gell. r. 14 ; 
Tatian, ad Oraec, 38), of which the third (Jo- 
seph, c Ap. ii. 2) and fourth (Tatian /. c. ; 
Clem. Stnmi. I 21 ; Justin (?) Coh. ad Gent. 9 ; 
Africaana L c.) CMitained misrepresentations re- 
specting the origin of the race and the circum- 
stances of the exodus ; and in a separate treatise 
Agamtt tht Jttct {nmrk 'lovSofwr fiifiKoSj Justin. 
(?) /. c. ; Africanus /. c.).^ According to Jose- 
pkea the grounds of his attack were threefold : 
(1) That the Jews were of Egyptian origin and 
*«rt expelled under highly discreditable circnm- 
itaacea ; (*i) that they were the great dbturbers 
•I t^ peace at Alexandria; and (3) that their 


r. X 

iC1*m. Rtenfn. x. ft2) erroneoosly trannlatm 

niatamicmtewi, *• tbuoi^ It wrre the nani<» 

try. IMdss csIU liim h Uku^jwUvv, and 

critlca take It as a patrooymic ; 

tebr Incorrect. 

tWee t«o «vre parts of a more cooiprrheo- 

mt' Him, nieotioned hj Suidas, but 

tfEmaid,Gf»€k.riL93. InClrm. 

IS Is alalcd that be iMd writtm many books 

the Jews, but this Is probably 

rites were bloodthirsty and absurd. Under this 
last head he gave the story of the worship of the 
head of an ass in the temple at Jerusalem (ii. 7X 
which is repeated by Tacitus (Hist. r. 4), and 
which by a not uncommon confusion in early 
times was transferred from Judaism to Chris- 
tianity (Minuc. Felix, 9, 28), and thus suggested 
the famous graffito of the Palatine barracks. He 
also gave currency to the calumny that a Greek 
fattened up for sacrifice was discovered in the 
temple by Antiochus, when he took the city 
(ii. 8). In the first part of the second book of 
his treatise Un ths Antiquity of the Jwos (Euseb. 
H. E. iii. 9 wcpl ti|9 *Iov8a/c0V &px^^'''^<>^) 
Josephus, apologizing for taking any notice of 
attacks so scurrilous and base, exposes the 
ignorance, mendacity, and self-contradictions of 
Apion. The second title of this treatise, Against 
ApioUy by which it is generally quoted, has in- 
ferior external authority (Fabric Bibl. Oraec, 
V. 7, ed. Harles), and is obviously incorrect ; for 
the refutation of Apion is only subsidiary to the 
main object of the work, though it occupies much 
space. This work is translated and annotated 
Frankel's Monatsckrift, i. 7 sq., 41 sq., 81 sq., 
121 sq. 

Nor was the hostility of Apion confined to 
writing. It was he who headed the famous em- 
bassy of the Alexandrians to Rome, sent with the 
▼iew of exasperating the emperor Cains against 
the Jews, as instigators of rebellion and as having 
refused to worship the imperial image (Joseph. 
Ant. xriii. 8, 1). Among the ambassadors sent 
by the Jews to counteract these machinations, 
was the fiunous writer Philo, who has left an 
account of the proceedings (Legat. ad Cai. ii. 
545 mX though he does not mention his chief 
opponent by name. 

2. It is not surprising that the spent wave 
of this antagonism should have overflowed on 
Judaic Chrititianity. Whether Apion actually 
came in contact with any members of the new 
brotherhood is more than questionable. His 
enrly date (for he flourished in the reigns of 
Tiberius, Caius, and Claudius) renders this impro- 
bable. But in the writings of the Petro-Cle- 
mentine cycle he holds a prominent plac^ as an 
anUgonist of the Gospel. In the Clementine 
Homilies he appears in company with Anubion 
and Athenodorus among the satellites of Simon 
Magus, the arch-enemy of St. Peter and St. 
Peter's faith. True to the character which 
genuine history assigns to him, he figures there 
as the representative of philosophic or rather of 
sophistical Hellenism. Besides this he is por- 
trayed M dealing in the magical arts of the 
Egyptians (v. 3-8). To this latter feature in 
the portrait Ewald (Gesch. r\. 83) objects as 
unhistorical ; but Plinr (iV. //. xxx. 6) tells us 
distinctly that Apion boasted of having rniited 
ghosts and conversed with them himself, and in his 
book IXtpl Mdyov he seems to have professed an 
entire belief in the power of magic- (see Miiller 
Fragm. Hist. Grace, iii. 515). But though 
the character of the man as given in the Cle- 
mentines is mainly historical, the incidents are 
fictitious. He is the friend of Clement's father 
(iv. 6 sq., XX. 11, 15), and Clement relates at 
length how at Rome Apion would have encou- 
raged the worst passions of his youth, alleging 
a* an example the profligacy of the god^ of 
Olympna, bnt was outwitted and outargued by 



hit more moral pupil who tihovn that they were 
no gods but tyrantA (▼. 3-30). When at a later 
date he falls in with Clement at Tvre, he takes 
up a diflerent line. Undertaking the defence of 
the Hellenic mythology, he explains all the 
abtiurd and immoral stories of the deities, as 
allegories involving physical truths (iv. 24, 25, 
▼i. 2-11). Thus Cronos is time. Rhea flowing 
water, &c. This tendency to allegorizing (the 
word occurs frequently) is in keeping with his 
Alexandrian education. Clement retorts that 
they are demons or magicians (vi. 18 sq.). The 
conversations with Apion thus occupy three 
books, iv, V, vi. At the close again (xx. 11 sq.) 
he reappears, but takes no prominent part. 
The Clementine Recognitions contain nothing 
corresponding to the disputes of Clement and 
Apion in the 4th, 5th, and 6th books of the 
Homilies ; but at the close of this work (x. 52), 
as at the close of the HomilieSj he is introduced 
as a subsidiary character in the plot. Eusebius 
(ff. E. iii. 38; cf. Photius Bibl. 113) men- 
tions yet another work (if it be another) be- 
longing to the same cycle, in which he appears, 
'* long and wordy compositions ** purporting to 
have come from Cjement, and " containing dia- 
logues of Peter forsooth and Apion." This last 
expression, as generally interpreted, is taken to 
imply that Apion there disputed not with Clement 
but with Peter (e. g, (Jhlhom Die Homil. u. 
Recogn. p. 70, Lehmann Die Clem. Schrift p. 
470); but in the not very exact language of 
Eusebius it might well denote conversations 
which Clement held with Peter and with Apion 
severally, and thuc refer to the extant Homilies 
or to some recension of them. 

The fragments of Apion will be found in 
Miiller's Fragm. Hist. Graec. ii. 506 sq., where 
there is alto a notice of the man and his writings. 
But no reference is there made to the Clementines. 
For the part which Apion plays in the Clemen- 
tines, the treatises on these writings by Schlie- 
mann, Uhlhorn, Hllgenfeld, Lehmann, and others 
may be consulted. 

(2) A Christian author about the close of 
the 2nd century, who wrote a work on the 
Hcxaemeron (Euseb. H E. r. 27 ; Hieron. Vir, 
m, 49). [L.] 

APOCALYPSES (Apocrtphal). Abund- 
ant as is the literature of apocryphal Gospels 
and Acts produced in the first centuries of the 
('hristian Church, the more meagre appears that 
of apocryphal Apocalypses current under Apo- 
stolic names, and derived from the same periods 
of ecclesiastical history. Apocalyptic literature 
of a certain kind was indeed as familiar to pri- 
mitive Christianity as it was to the later Judaism, 
but the traditional forms into which writings of 
that kind were cast, requii-ed the employment 
of Old Testament names of authorship, such as 
Moses, Henoch, Elias, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, 
Daniel, Eldad and Modad, kc,^ the custom being 
to assign the office of announcing ihe future 
fortunes of the Church not to Apostles of the 
New Testament but to prophets of the Old. The 
Revelation of the Apostle St. John is the solitary 
representative in the New Testament of this 
branch of literature ; but when in the course of 
the 2nd century Montanism began to assert its 
new prophetic claims, and to demand for its ut- 
torances Divine authority, the prophets of the 


sect such as Montanus, Prisca, MaximilU, Ale>> 
ander, came forward each in his own name with* 
out deeming it necessary to seek to conceal them- 
selves under any artificial pseudonym. An ex- 
ception to this statement must be made in respect 
to the ** Shepherd ** an (orthodox) work produced 
about the middle of the 2nd century, and in the 
time of the Roman bishop Pius, which selected 
Hermas, a contemporary of Clemens Romanus 
(Vis. ii. 4), and therefore an apostolic man 
(cf. Rom. xvi. 4) for the recipient of its pre- 
tended revelations. But in this case there was a 
special motive furnished by the purpose for which 
the work was written for thus antedating its 
prophecies by some fifty years. That purpose 
was to announce a second term of repentance 
vouchsafed by the Divine mercy, out of indulg- 
ence to the infirmities of the faithful, and arail- 
able for every one who should rtttive the reve- 
lation, but at the same time to cuv off any future 
hope of pardon for sins into which the baptixed 
might hereafter fall, by announcing the near 
approach of the Second Advent of Christ. A 
somewhat similar phenomenon meets us in an- 
other work of the latter half of the 2nd century 
(which, however, does not pretend to apostolical 
authorship), the Book of Elxai (Pseudorigenes, 
Refut. omn. Haer, ix. 15; Epiph. Hatr. 19), like- 
wise antedates its own composition, and assigns 
it to the third year of the emperor Trajan. 
Whether on the other hand the Judaistic Gnostic 
Cerinthus did really, as he b accused of doing by 
the Roman presbyter Cains (ap. Euseb. H. E, iiL 
28), publish his pretended revelations under a 
celebrated apostolic name, is more than doubtful. 
The reference is in all probability to the Reve- 
lation of St. John which Caius rejected, and on 
account of its Millenarianism attributed to O- 
rinthus. At any rate, all that Caius reports of 
the alleged work of Cerinthus may well apply 
to the Book of Revelation; and we may also 
ga'ther from his own words 8i* AiroiraA^c«»r its 
inrh aMo<rr6\ov fitydKov y9ypafifA4tm9 (and espe- 
cially from the singular Avoot^Aov), that it is 
not to several books of revelations, but only to 
several revelations or visions (which might all be 
collected in one book), to which he is referring. 

The only other Apocalypse claiming apostolic 
authorship which appears for any length of time 
to have obtained in the Church, and so in any 
measure to have rivalled in position the Revela- 
tion of St. John, was the ** Apocalypse of Peter.** 
Of this only a few fragments remain (ap. Hllgen- 
feld, Novum Testamentiun extra oanonem rf- 
oeptum, fasc iv. 74 sqq.). In the Mnratorian 
Fragment it is enumerated along with the Reve- 
lation of St. John among the canonical Scriptures 
of the New Testament, the author of the frag- 
ment at the same time remarking that opinions 
varied in the Church as to its authority {Apoca- 
lypses etiam Joannis et Petri tantvm recipimus 
quam quidam ex nostris legi in eodesia Holtint). 
Clemens Alexandrinus reckons it among the An- 
tilegomena (Clem. Hypotyp. ap. Euseb. H, E, 
vi. 14); the Ik rwv Tpo^rucw ^kXoto/ pre- 
served among the works of Clemens, cite it with- 
out hesitation as a genuine Petrine work {Edog. 
ex Proph. sectt. 41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq. ed. 
Potter) ; Methodius of Tyre (cir. 312) likewise 
seems to have reckoned it among tfc^vrfv^ra 
ypdfifiara (Methodius, St/mpos. 11, 6, p. 16 ed. 
Jahn). So also the ancient Catalogue of the 


Booki of Sciiptnn it tht tad of th« Cal«i Cli- 

aiai writiogs tad delennina iti Itogth M ei- 
ItudiBE to 270 rrfxDi- EoMbios of Cbcuth 
ippcan la ene pbe< {H. E. Hi. S) to itBj <t 11117 

while In mother ill. E. iii. 25) he nckooi It 
■Biongt the u-callsd Aatilegamenii, or nther 
«mons iporioni writiog. of the hetttr clu* lepit- 

BuToatioo (inch m the' w^iftii na^Aou, the 
i!3iet*erd of Htmai, the Eputl» of Barrudai, and 
the I.Ux<>) T£r kworri^m,). Soiomeo (ff. £. 
Hi. 19), who together with 81, Jerome (,Cat. Vir. 
flhttlr.t. 1) likewise pnmounm it to betpurioiu, 
nblei nerenhfleu that It wu ia hit time pah- 
lici J read osca ■ yt*i is lome chnrcha of Psle- 
itiae (*0Tw ytiv r^r naXm/fiirQr tvondXu^uf 
nir^M Ai Mar *UT<A«f vpii rAr lpx><i*" 
I wnn ffwJ <> Tumi ^mc^qo-fiui tSi IliiXcu- 
otIf^ tiff^i viiv !■■{ tnJffrti; Inut iivfov- 
rHfurqv lyyufur it rj iiiip^ lI«(Mwiiripfli, *i> 
•*Aii0Bi ftrw 4 holt niimbi jil infifiifii roii 
ninwilw nUsvf). Farther, the (ktilogne of 
Aoutadu SiiuiU eonUliu it ia the Appeodii to 
the K*w TnUment. lod ill title b found in the 
Glichometrj of NinphoniB iraoog the Anlilo- 
pMoen imiiKdiilelr iftir the Rerektiou of St. 
JdiB. Th* locg reosgnilioD of the boak in ortho- 
doi drcle*, provs that it could not hare had a 
OxHtic origiB, DOT olherwiie coBtained whut wu 
odnuTa to Catholic Chri.tiani. The refEreoce 
to it IB tb* Muratorian Cai 



t fill 1 

! 2Dd o 


rtauio ar« hinllj lofficient to wamint «ny con- 
jecioreL Acooriii^ to HilgenWd (p. 75). it 
docribed the afflicllouiiRpeDdiDgon IheChurcb, 
aad the tame icholar conj*ctum (p. 77 tq.) that 
the pnphttial pauaga cited by Hippolyttu iL 
hi) work /V AiUkAriiio (p. 8 1. 8 njq, ed. Lagarde) 
iBcludisg the prophetic qaotatioa at Eph. v. M, 
were taken from the Apocal^pw of Peter. 

Of Qaoetic Apocalypua but few tracea re- 
aain. Epiphaniu (Haer. 38, 2) meDtioiu » 
o.iT*Bt amoBg the Caiuitei (Kuvnl), a sect of 
Ophitta, and among the lo-called "Gnontica" 

£ roper an irmOaTiiiir na^Aeu which Kemii to 
are been ■ fiction founded on 2 Cor. lii. 2 iqq. 
Whrther Ihii be Ihe work <o which Dionrsiua of 
Aleiaadria allDda with blame (»p. Euseb. //. E. 
Tii. 2.>) must remain oDnrtain. The notice of it 
in th* BfiaatiiK Chronicler, Hirhael Glrkai 
(ap. /oVk. Cod. Apoeryp/i. If. T. torn. ii. p. ftW) 
in dfHrod from Eiuebioi, and cannot therefore 
ba resided u iBdepeadent teatimoDy. Si. An- 
gD^iiH uhI Soiomen likewLw mention an Apo- 
alT7>w of Pinl, bat baiHng Id Ti< 

Goattie or heretical origin. In fact, 1 
to the leitimonjr of Siitoi Eeneniii (£iM. Saori 
li. 142), Serapioa ii aaid to hare auertod 
In hii book agHtBat the Manicheans that the 
Apocaljpae of Stephen tlood with that aect In 
high estimation. But meanwhile (he citation 
haa not again been Terified fcf. Fabricitu, to. 
p. 965). 

Of mnch later origin ii a aeriet of Apoca- 
IrpMa, leTernl of which have been reccDlljr 
printed bf Tiachendorf (Apooali/pia apocr. 
Leipiic, 1S£6). Pint among theie ii the Apo- 
ealfpn of Paul (Tbch. p. St iqq.) mtntlmied br 
St. Auguitine (TracloL n Jomn. 9B) and tn 
Soiomen ( IT. K. rii. 19), which moat be carefully 
dittinguiihed tnoi Ihe older .^aomiiD ynWi 
already ipokkn of. Thig Apoealypgc waa pro- 
bablT the fabrication of aom* monk of Paleatine 
in the time of Ihe emperor Theodoiiai the Grwt, 
and wu according to Boiomen in much Bileem 
with the moDki of bit day. Latar eccleaiaitlcal 
writen make frequent mention of it. ("te the 
paaMgei In yabridoi, L c p. 94T m., and Tiach- 
endorf, Pnieg. p, xt). Elie da Pin (Proltgg. 
£«. ii. «9) aiaerta that It atill eibta in a 
Coptic Ttniioa : Arabic and Sjrlac U8S. conUin- 
ing Tenloni of it were found by Aatemani in the 
Vatican {Caiahs. BW. OrittH. CItia. Vat. ton). 
iii. pan 1, p. 282), and -a Syriac MS. of the 
Keitoriani in Urumija haa been recently pub- 
liihed with an Englith tranilation by Perkin* 
(./oumn/ 0/ Saertd Literatare and BAIical Bt- 
cord, edited by B. H. Cowper. London, 1B66, p. 
372 sqq. Btprinted fnm Ihe Jvurnal of At 
Amarican Oritnlal Sodtti/, toI. Till. 188*). For 
she hiitory of the New Teatament apocalyptic 
:itemlBre thi* lata fabrlcition haaoaralue wbal- 
may b« aaid of tl 
John" • '•■ ■ 
opocr. Fniriciani, 1804, and in a better tt 
ap. Tiachendorf, p. 70 aqq.). The tint ciutioa 
from il is found in the Scholia to Ihe Omtninar 
ef DionpiDs Thrai, which dalei from the 91b 
centnry, and it i< at any rate of slill later origin 
than the laat mentioned. There eiist, fuHher, 
in MS., and ai yet unpHnted, an "Apocnlrpae of 
Peter" (which appears I0 hare nnlhtog Id com- 
mon with Ihe older celebrated Book bearin;; the 
anme name) and an '■ Apocalj-pae of [(.irlho- 
lomew." The former, which iDtroducei itself aa 
written by St. Clement of Rome, Bn.1 is also 
callc'l Iter ptrfectionii, now eii*t> only in Arabic. 
It had been >«en already by Jacobus h Vilrlnco^ 
a> he himself reports in hin e]>islle to Pope Ho- 
norius III.. A.D. 1218. Some Vatican MSS. ot 
this Apocalypse i 

■it.) 1 

work w 

> still ii 

It n 


Kicoll b 
I from a MS, 1 

ried Ii 

e Bod. 

ila donbtful which book b referi. 
to in ih* Alcnfam Grlaiu (ap, Credon-, lu 
'.(sAioUr dn Kammi, Halle, 1847, p. 219) n 
'■ " "^ "■ " " lediatelyafterthi 

apocryphal Apo 


• rna lb* Infemaltoa (bna glren n* of Iw conMrta 
ilie dsu at which Ihli ApeotTpae wii wrlKni nu.T ba 

inrroiimalilr iMfttiiIiihI. TlL Ktne (line 4nrlnK the 

■ fiiibBble that aaiignt to them 




lypM of Bartholomew nothing has been dUco- 
rereU hitherto bej ond a fragment of the Sahidic 
rersion, which Dnlanrier has published with a 
French iranslatiDn (^Fragment det r^t^latium 
apocrypKe* de S. Barth^Umi, &c Paris. 1835. 
The French text is also reproduced by Tischen- 
dorf in his Apooai. Apocr, prolegg. p. xxiv 
sqq.). [R. A. L.] 

CLAUDIUS {*ATo\iydptos: so spelt in the 
most ancient manuscripts of the Greek writers 
who refer to him ; Latin writers generally use 
the form ApollinarisX bbhop of Hierapolis, in 
Phrygia, a.d. 171 and onwards (Euscb. Chron,), 
one of the most active and esteemed Christian 
writers of the day. He is praised by Photius 
for his style (Phot. Cod, 14). Jerome enumerates 
him among the ecclesiastical writers who were 
acquainted with heathen literature, and who 
made use of this knowledge in the refutation 
of heresy (Ep, ad Mmjnum^ iv. 83, p. 656). 
Theodoret also mentions his knowledge of heathen 
literature (Theod. Haer. Fab. Compend, iiu 2). 
Only a few fragments of his works have been 
preserved. Eusebius (//. E, iv. 27) gives the 
following list of those which had fallen into his 
hands ; and his list is repeated by St. Jerome 
(Be Vir. III. cap. 26) and Nicephorus (H. E. iv. 
11). (1.) An apology addressed to Marcus Aure- 
lius, probably written after a.d. 174, since it is 
likely that it contained the reference to the 
miracle of the Thundering Legion elsewhere 
quoted by Eusebius from Apollinaris (//. E. v. 
5). (2.) Five books vphs ' 'EWriras written accord- 
ing to Nicephorus in the form of a dialogue. (3.) 
Two books wtpi &Ai)6rfat. (4.) Two books wphs 
*lov^alovs : these are not mentioned by St. Jerome, 
and the reference to them is absent from some 
copies of Eusebius. (5.) Writings against the 
Phrygian heresy, published when Montanus was 
making the first beginning of his heresy ; that is 
to say, according to the Chromcon of Eusebius, 
about A.D. 172. These writings which were pro- 
bably in the form of letters, are appealed to by 
Serapion, bishop of Antioch (Euseb. JT, E. v. 19) ; 
and Eusebius elsewhere (//. E. v. 16) describes 
Apollinaris as raised up as a strong and irresisti- 
ble weapon against Montanism. The situation of 
his see sufficiently accounts for the prominent 
part taken by Apollinaris in this controversy. 
We are told indeed by an anonymous writer who 
probably wrote at the end of the 9th century 
(Auctor Libelli Synodici apud Labbe et Cossart, 
i. 599), that Apollinaris on this occasion 
assembled twenty-six other bishops in council, 
and excommunicated Montanus and Maxiroilla, 
as well as the shoemaker Theodotus. The same 
writer ascribes to Apollinaris a statement that 
Montanus and Maximilla committed suicide ; pro- 
bably supposing him to be the author of an ano- 
nymous work against Montani&m [Astekius 
Urbanus], fragments of which are preser^-ed by 
Eusebius {^H. E. v. 16), and in which the suicide 
of these prophets is mentioned as a common 
rumour. But if Apollinaris had been the writer 

jbnnding of the djiusty of the Benft-'l-AbbAs, successors 
cf Mubammed, fn the year 750 kj>. (co. 47, 48) ; and the 
efforts of the emperor in the year 755 to Aerate the 
intervention of Pipin in JUI7 (c. Sl>. 

For the Indication of tliese historical references the 
writer is indebted to his fHend Protoaeor von Outschmid. 

it b likely he would have been able to speak 
more positively; and besides Apollinaris, who 
wrote (Euseb. H, E, iv. 27) at the very begin- 
ning of the Montanist heresy, could scarcely 
have been the author of a work purporting to be 
written fourteen years after the death of Maxi- 
milla, whose prophesying there is every reason to 
believe continued for many years. Besidea the 
works mentioned by Eusebius, who doeK not give 
his list as a complete one, Theodoret (Haer. Fab. 
ii. 21) mentions (6) that Apollinaris wrote 
against the Encratites of the school of Severus 
(jtrpht roht Xtovupuufoht *f,yicpariTasy, (7.) 
Photius {Cod. 14) makes mention of having read 
of Apollinaris his work vfhs "EAAiivas, jcoi vtpl 
hXtfiuoi icol a-cpl tvct^^ias. It has been ques- 
tioned whether (a) by this work vcpl tinrtfiuas 
we are to understand a new work of Apollinaris 
not mentioned by Eusebius ; or (6) whether the 
words wtfi &Ai|6cJai irol w§(A •ho*fi*ia$ describe 
a single work, the same as that described by 
Eusebius as v«p< iiXuBtioai against this Houth 
{KeL Sac. ii. 171) urges the repetition of the 
v«p(; or (c) whether the work wtpl cwrc/Scias 
may not be identical with the apology addressed 
to Marcus Aurelius {\6yot 6iri/» r^s vioTcwy); or 
lastly (d) since it is the habit of Photius to give 
a separate paragraph to each work he reads, 
whether the whole description relates to the 
single work wphs "EWrivas which is further de- 
scribed by its subject icol a-cpl &A^cIas iced vcp) 
tvatfiflas. So Donaldson, FlUUmf of CkriMtian 
Literature iii. 243. The works vp&s 'EAAi^rar and 
v«pl hKuBtiasy however, are plainly distinguished 
by Eusebius. (8.) In the pretace to the Alexan- 
drian Chronicle a work repl rov ircUrxa is attri- 
buted to Apollinaris, from which two extracts 
are furnished which have given rise to much con- 

The main point of controversy is whether (as- 
suming the fragments to be genuine) Apollinaris 
wrote on the side of the practice of the Roman 
Church, or on that of the Quartodecimans of Asia 
Minor. In support of the former view is urged the 
similarity of the language of these fragments with 
that of (Element of Alexandria and of Hippolytna, 
who advocated the Western practice ; and gaain 
the fact that Apollinaris is not claimed as a Quar* 
todeciman by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in hu 
letter to Victor of Rome, in which he defends the 
use of his Church by the authority of some other 
less eminent men. On the other side it is urged 
that Apollinaris speaks of his antagonists as 
" some who raise contention through ignorance,*' 
language which would rather convey the im- 
pression that Apollinaris was writing against the 
opinions of some small sect than that be was 
combating the belief of the whole Church of 
Asia Minor to which he belonged ; and it is 
further urged that if Apollinaris had been the 
first to defend in the East the practice which 
ultimately prevailed, it is incredible that Euse- 
bius or some other early writer should make no 
mention of this early chalnpion of the Catholic 

Socrates the historian {H. E. iii. 7) names 
Apollinaris, together with Irenaeus, Clement, and 
Serapion as holding the doctrine that our Lord 
when He became man had a human soul (ffv^vxo9 
rhy ivaif$p«nHiff€Lyra). 

Apollinaris had been set down as a Chiltast on 
St. Jerome's anthorit? {De Vir, lU. cap. 18) t 




but Ronth {Hel, Sac. i. 174) has given good 
reaaoD for thinking that th« Apollinaris intended 
U the ronnger Apollinaris^ of Laodicea ; since 
Jerome speaks of Irenaens and Apollinaris as the 
first and the last of the Greek Millenarians (lib. xi. 
( omm. m Ezech. cap. 36 iii. 952), and also states 
that Apollinaris answered Dionjrsius of Alex- 
andria {Prooem, in lib. xriii. Comm, Esaiae 
iii. 478). 

The martjrrologiei commemorate the death of 
Apollinaris on the 7th of Febniary. Of the 
year, or of the place and manner of his death 
nothing b known. Onlj that it was before the 
end of the 2nd century^ may be inferred from 
the Ungnage in which he b described in the 
letter of Serapion written abont that time (KAov 
9iov *Aw9Kt¥aplov rov fuucaputrdrov ytvoi».4vov 
ip 'Upcnr^Xti rris *Avias iwivic6wov), [O. S.] 



APOLLINARIS (St. and Mart.), first 
bishop or archbbhop of Ravenna, perhaps from 
5<»>78. According to the life written hj Agnel- 
las in the 9th cent. {Li'ter Pontificaiis^ ap. Mora- 
tori, Rer, R. Script. IL part i.), St. Apollinaris 
was a native of Antioch, well instructed in 
Greek and Latin literature, who followed St. 
Peter to Rome, and was sent by him to Ravenna. 
On his way h« healed the son of Irenaeus who 
was blind, and did other miracles. At Ravenna 
be baptized in the river Bidens, and raised the 
daughter of the patrician Rufus to life ; he was 
imprboned by the heathen n^r the capitol, and 
wu there fed by angels. Af^<erwards being ex- 
jielled from the city, he preached in Dalmatia, 
Pannonia, Thrace, and Corinth. After three 
Venn be returned and suffered new persecutions, 
and did new miracles, one of which was to destroy 
a stAtue and temple of Apollo by hb prayers. 
He was martyred under Vespasian, after an epi- 
scopate of rather more than 28 years. 

Other Uvea such as that in the Acta Sanctorum 
are more full of miracles, but do not add any- 
thing else of Importance. The day of his death 
b agreed upon as July 23rd ; the year is un- 
certain, but may have been 78. From a sermon 
of St. Peter Chrysologus in the 5th cent. (No. 
I'i8. pw 552 sq. ed. Migne), it appears that St. 
AfttlMnariM was the only bishop of Ravenna who 
tnffercd martyrdom, and that he, strictly speak- 
lag, can only be called a confessor. He did not 
die, it would seem, a violent death, though it 
may have been hastened by the persecutions he 
anderwent. It b probable that like his suc- 
ce«or Aderitus he died in the port-town Classis, 
vhere he was buried. A new church, still exist- 
ing, waa built about the same time as that of 
St. ViUle, and Into thb his body was translated 
hr St. Maximianus about 552. The mosaic over 
tlU apae seems to realize the words of St. Peter 
nirrsologus (nt supra), ** Ecce vivit, ecce ut 
boBvs pastor soo medius assbtit in grege." As 
aarly as 575 it waa the custom to take solemn 
oaths apeo hb relics (St. Greg. Magn., Ep. vi. 
61). His body was moved fh>m place to place 
in the eborch at various times, and was taken 
to Ravtana in 1515 for the sake of safety, but 
rcftored to it in 1655 (see authorities in Acta 
Sne^ar, for Jalv 23). Thb most interesting 
«Mdin| with IM Tteaat monastery adjoin- 

ing, b now the only remnant of the town of 
Classb. [J. W.] 

APOLLINARIS (or, according to Greek or^ 
thography, Apollimarius) the Elder, of Alex- 
andria, was born about the beginning of the 4th 
century. After teaching grammar for some time 
at Berytus in Phoenicia, he removed, a.d. 335, 
to Laodic^ of which church he was made pres- 
byter. Here he married and had a son, after- 
wards the bishop of Laodicea. [See foil, art.] 
Both father and son were on intimate terms with 
the heathen sophbts Libanius and Epiphanius of 
Petra, frequenting the lecture-room of the latter, 
on which account they were admonished and, 
upon their venturing to sit out the recitation of 
a hymn to Bacchus, excommunicated by Theo- 
dotus, bishop of Laodicea. They were however 
restored upon their subsequent repentance (Socr. 
Eccles, Hist. iii. 16; Sozom. vi. 25). 

The elder Apollinaris b chiefly noted for hb 
literary labours. When the edict of Julbn, 
A.D. 362, forbade the Christians to study Gre^^k 
literature, he undertook with the help of hb 
son to supply the void bv reconstructing the 
Scriptures on the classical models. Thus the 
whole biblical hbtory down to SauPs accession 
was turned into 24 books of Homeric hexameters, 
each superscribed, like those of the IlUid, by a 
letter of the alphabet. Lyrics, tragedies, and 
comedies, after the manner of Pindar, Euripidet, 
and Menander, followed. Even the (Sospels and 
Epistles of the New Test, were made to adapt 
themselves to the form of Socratic deputation. 
Two works alone remain to us as samples of 
their indomitable zeal ; a tragedy entitled Christ- 
us Pattens, in 2601 lines, which has been edited 
among the works of Gregory Nazianzen ; and a 
version of the Psalms, in Homeric hexameters. 
The opening of the tragedy, which b an obvious 
cento from the Medea of Euripides, goes far to 
betray the secret of their omni-representative 
energy. Throughout the work the virgin-mother 
is made to vent her sorrows, now in the fierce 
ravings of Medea, now in the hypocritical vaunt* 
ings of Clytemnestra, and now in the dreariest 
of platitudes, which cannot be traced to their 
original. The Greek of the playj where it is the 
author's own, b no better than the sentiment. 
The most that can be said of the Homeric Psal- 
ter is that it is better than the tragedy, and 
that as a whole it fully bears out the reputation 
of the poet (Basil. A/>. 273, 406) that he waa 
never at a loss for an expression. What share 
in the great reproduction was undertaken by 
euch of the Apollinarii we cannot say. Sozo- 
men (v. 18) speaks only of the son's poetic 
power, and that in terms which provoke a 
smile ; but Socrates, who is the more trust- 
worthy of the two historians, ascribes the Old 
Test, poems directly to the father (iii. 16X and 
adds that the son as the greater rhetorician 
devoted his energies to converting the Gospels 
and Epistles into Platonic dialogues. He like- 
wise mentions a treatise on grammar compiled 
by the elder Apollinaris, xp(<'^t<u'<'c^ rdittf. The 
passage is worth reading for its quaint uncon- 
scious humour. For the different opinions which 
have been held as to the authorship of father 
and son, cf. Vossius, d« l/ist. Oraec. ii. 18; 
de Poet. Oraec. c 9 ; Duport, Praef. ad MetapK 
Psatm. Lond. 1674. 




The Mitaphrasis Paaimorum was pabluhed at 
Paris 1552 ; bj Sjlburg, at Heidelberg, 1596 ; 
•ad subsequently in various collections of the 
Fathers. The latest edition is that in Migne's 
Pairohgia Oraeca, xxiii. [£. M. Y.] 

APOLLINARIS the Touwoer, bishop of 
Laodicea, flourished in the latter half of the 4th 
century, and was at first highly esteemed, even 
by Athanasius and Basil, for his classical culture, 
pioty, and adhesion to the Nicene Creed during 
the Arian controversy, until he brought out a 
Chribtological heresy which is called after him, 
and which in some respects prepared the way 
for Monophysitism. He assisted his father in 
composing Uie Christian works in imitation of 
the style of Homer, Menander, &c, mentioned 
in the preceding article. He also wrote in 
defence of Christianity against Julian and Por- 
phyry ; of orthodoxy against the Manichaeans, 
Arians, Marcellus, Ennomius, and other he- 
retics ; biblical commentaries, and other works, 
of which only fragments remain. Jerome en- 
joyed his instruction, a.d. 374. He did not 
secede from the communion of the Church and 
begin to form a sect of his own till 375. He died 
about 392. After his death his followers, who 
were not numerous, were divided into two par- 
ties, the Polemians and Valentinians. His doc- 
trine was condemned by a Synod of Alexandria 
(without naming him), by two Synods at Rome 
under Damasus (377 and 378), and by the second 
Oecumenical Council (381). Imperial decrees 
prohibited the public worship of the Apolli- 
narists (388, 397, 428), until during the 5th 
century they were absorbed partly by the ortho- 
dox, partly by the Monophysites. But the pecu- 
liar Christology of ApoUinaris has reappeared 
from time to time, in a modified shape, as an 
isolated theological opinion. 

ApoUinaris was the first to apply the results 
of the Nicene controversy to Christology proper, 
and to call the attention of the Church to the 
psychical and pneumatic element in the humanity 
of Christ ; but in his zeal for the true deity of 
Christ, and fear of a double personality, he fell into 
the error of a partial denial of His true humanity. 
Adopting the psychological trichotomy of Plato 
(^ffAfjM ^uxh* vK«Dfui), for which he quoted 
1 Thess. V. 23 and Gal. v. 17, he attributed to 
Christ a human body i<rmfia) and a human soul 
(the ^vx^ &KoyoSt the anima animans which 
man has in common with the animal), but not 
a rational spirit {yovs^ wytdfui, ^vxh f^oyucijt 
anima rutionalis), and put in the place of the 
latter the divine Logos. In opposition to the 
idea of a mere connection of the Logos with the 
man Jesus, he wished to secure an organic unity 
of the two, and so a true incarnation ; but he 
•ought this at the expense of the most important 
constituent of man. He reached only a B*ht 
eapKo<lt6poSt as Nestorianism only an iivBponros 
Bto^ApoSy instead of the proper OtdyBpwiros, He 
appealed to the fact that the Scripture says, 
** the Word was made flesh ** — not spirit ; " God 
was manifest in the flesK,** &c. To which Gregory 
Naxianzen justly replied that in these passages 
the term <r^i was used by synecdoche for the 
whole human nature. In this way ApoUinaris 
established so close a connection of the Logos 
with human flesh, that all the divine attributes 
were transferred to the human nature, and aU 

the human attributes to the divine, wsA the two 
merged in one nature in Christ. Hence he could 
speak of a crucifixion of the Logos, and a worship 
of his flesh. He made Christ a middle being 
between God and man, in whom, as it were, one 
part divine and two parts human were fiised in 
the unity of a new nature. * He even ventured 
to adduce created analogies, such as the mule, 
midway between the horse and the ass ; the grey 
colour, a mixture of white and black ; and spring, 
in distinction from winter and summer. Christ, 
said he, is oGrt iifBftunrot B\os, oikc 0f et. iiXXk 
$90v Kid iivBpAwov fillis. On the other hand, he 
regarded the orthodox view of a union of full 
humanity with a full divinity in one person — of 
two wholes in one whole — as an absurdity. He 
caUcd the result of this construction hhpww^ 
0cot, a sort of monstrosity, which he put in the 
same category with the mythological figure ol 
the Minotaur. But the Apollinarian idea of the 
union of the Logos with a truncated human 
nature might be itself more justly compared 
with this monster. Starting from the Micene 
homoou^on as to the Logos, but denying the 
completeness of Christ's humanity, he met Aria- 
nism half-way, which Ukewise pnt the divine 
Logos in the plane of the human spirit in Christ. 
But he strongly asserted his nndiangeableneis, 
while Aruuu taught hU ehang«bt«>«i (rpn^ 

The faith of the Church revolted against such 
• mutilated and stunted humanity of Christ, 
which necessarily involved also a merely partial 
redemption. The incarnation is an assumption 
of the entire human nature, sin only excluded. 
The iytriipKmffis is ipoiSpAirnarts. To be a full 
and complete Redeemer, Christ must be a perfect 
man (rcXcfor &i^ponros). The spirit or rational 
soul is the most important element in man, his 
crowning glory, the seat of intelligence and free- 
dom, and needs redemption as weU as the soul 
and the bod v ; for sin has entered nnd corrupted 
all the faculties. 

Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil, and E4M- 
phanius combated the Apollinarian error, but 
with a certain embarrassment, attacking it rather 
from behind and from the flank than in fW>nt, 
and were unprepared to answer duly its main 
point, that two integral persons cannot form one 
person. The later orthodox doctrine surmounted 
this difficulty by teaching the impersonaUty of 
the human nature of Christ, and by making the 
personaUty of Christ to reside wholly in the 

ApoUinarianism opened the long line of Chris- 
tological controversies, which resulted in the 
Chalcednnian symbol. 

Literature. — Of the writings of ApoUinaris, 
ircpl capK^fftmSt srcpl witrrtmSf wtpl h^turrJi' 
tf'foft, Karii Kt^dXtioy, and other polemical and 
exegetical works and epistles, only fragments 
remain in the answers of Gregory of Nyssa and 
Theodoret, in Leontius Byzant., in the Catenae, 
and in Angelo Mai's Nova Bibliotheca Patrum^ 
tom. vii. (Rom. 1854), pars ii. pp. 82-91. 
Against ApoUinaris are directed Atnanasius's 
Contra ApoHinarium^ or rather rcpl aapxtiatts 
rov Kvpiov rifi£y 'I. X. (Opera^ ed. Bened. tom. 
' pars ii. pp. 921-955), written about 372 


witnout naming ApoUinaris ; Gregory of Nyssa, 
A6yos iLm^PtyriKht irp6s rk * KroWumpiov^ 
first edited b) Zaccasni, Rom. 1698, and then 


, Bin. Vtl. Patr. tL 517-577; B^ 
■liH U, Spilt. 1S5 {Opera, td. Ben. iii. ii. 
Ml aqq.) ; Epiphuiiu, Hatr. Liirii. ; ThKdoTFt, 
FabmlM Hatr. it. 8, t. B. Of tha Ut«r liter*- 
tun, ef. (apeciallT PfUTiiu, Dt IncantaliOM 
Vtrti, i. cap. 6 ; Wilcb, Hidory of Htrma, lil. 
lIS-2-i9 ; Biu, ifuttvy of tin Tn~ty, i. 585- 
MT; DanHT, /futory (^ arulu&gy, i. 974- 
1060 ; ^eullle^, DoctriM JfiMory, i. 334-338 ; 
Sch»lC Uidory <^ tin OtrMiia CIturtA, iti. 708- 
714. [P. 8.] 

APOLLONIA, IL, > Tirgin bnrud >t Alei- 
uidTU A.D. M9 (£ptK. & I>i(m. Altx. in EoKb. 
tf. E. Ti. 41> [A. W. H.] 

APOLLONIUS of EFREnjs, » oUed od the 
deabcfg] Miborilj of tb* vriUr of Fraednti- 
Mifw, edilad bj £ii 


Apollonini E"w Dp btiuliful, ud of citn- 
ordiurj intelUgeiiM. When fourtMn yean of 
aite he wai taken t« Taniu and placed UIu)«T 
the chaise of Euthydeinai, ■ rhetorician ; but 

laiUr t 

iu or lb* 

the Deigb. 

iple of 

e became Ibe pnpil ot ■ 

9 illen 

of EnMbini and 
■ It difficult 

to Uj mncb ttraa on tliia italenii 
WTOt* a work ia fire hooka agaiiut the Cat*- 
phryriaa or HontaDiat hervaj. Fngmente of 
ibo Drat tbree booki ara axtant in EDiabiua 
{II. E. T. 18X and contain mnch that ii cnrioni 
■■d ralnablt *ith nf-ard to the unaalntly lirei 

PriadlU aad Haiimilla, and their followen. 
Jtioa* alio d«TDt« an articla to Apallonini, 
Yir, lUatL c. 50, in which ha calli him irt/p 
itJtMTfiitSTWTH, the author of a iitya nl irlni- 
mm -rnxat, and quote* hia aulhoritj for the 
Hatament Ibat Montanua and hi* prophelwiea 
)«t aa end to thoir lire* bjr hanging. The book 
pnreMca to be written forty yeari after the mm- 

Taking for Iha rlK of MonUnlim the date gifeo 
i> the OlrvwoHi of EuHbiui (A.D. 172) Ihii wonld 

E>« about A.l>. 310 for the dale of thii work. 
ucUn* DiMtiMU alu that ApolloDiui citei th« 
BfTclation of St. John, that he relatea the railing 
to life of a dead roan at tphefloj by Ihe uthf John, 

fesMd hinurlf a Pfthagorean. bat wiu in reaKlf 
■ loTCT of good living, and, aa PhiloBtratui laja, 
Dndentood the precepta of Pjthagonie no raort 
than a parrot Dodentandi tha wordi which it 
baa been taught to npeat. Apollooiiu, how- 
ergr, re>pecled Elaieuni, and girt him a garden 
with fountaini, "aying, " Lite yon aa jou plean, 
but 1 will lite afUr the manner of Pvthiguraa." 
In aecordanc* with tbii declaration, tie he^en to 
ahatain from animal food and wine (without, 
howergr, aallrtlir conderoDlng tha uu of th* 
latter), and rejected all garmcnU made from 
liTlng creaturee. He lei hi* heir grow, and 
•pent most of hi* time in tha temple of Aeaco- 
lapini, where he eidled the wonder of all, and 
beouna fiunont throngh the whole munlry. 
The god himaelf faToured him conipicaoualr, 
giring him lUpematnn! knowledge into tha 
charactere of thoea who came to the temple, 
whereby Kme were cnred of their diMaaea, othan 
Uing wicked were lent awaj without gaininl 
their requeela. When in hii twentieth jear, ha 
rttnmed to Tyaaa In coueqnauc* of his father'* 
'--■^ and diTided the property with hie br"'^ — 

a thre. 

or; but pr. 


if rafoiming hia brother, 
llTed a diaiipated li^, he gate him half hi* own 
■hare, and partly by klodnua, pertly throngh 
hi* own eiample, l«l him to a belter way of 
living. ARer thii he gate away th* grcattr 
part of what r»maln»d of hii forlone, rewrTJig 
only a imall portion for himoelf. He thtn do- 
clartd hi* intention of Defer inarryiDg, and kept 
the fire yean term of silence which was required 

o by Clement of Aleiandria (.-'tro 
an) IVom tha Apocrrphal "Prtachii 
ir Lord commanded Hii Apoit lei 

i. 5 eub I ' 

a for 1 

r Hi. a«^eD>ioi 

: of ApollonlDe waa IhouKht lufficieatly 
important by Tertuilian to demand an aDswrr. 
Tbt Hventh book of bii loet work, Dt Ecalaii, 
wna deroled to a refutation of fall aaiertiona. 
(Hieron. IM fir. IU. c 50; Euub. H.E. r. 18; 
Can, //ill. lil. L 8S; Tillamont, Jlitl. Eccl. il. 
4^8; Dnpin,l.) [L. V.} 

AP(II.IX)N1UB OP TTKVi. The Ufa of 
thit pliilowphtr, ai related by Phlloilnitna, ii 
Mt fofEuwL He wai bom at Tjau, a Greek dtj 
of Cappidoda. Hi* birth wai accompanied by 
wondeiful eigni; the god Proleni appeared lo 


Afaln. the wrnl out II 

toe lim at ner drlirtry (being wamEd to do a 
in a dnan) ; while there, the fell a.leep, and i 
flock of iwani i>nrrDDnd*d h(r, liuiting and flap 
pisg Ibeir wingt, being routed by whiih $h 
pTe biith to her con. At ibe uime time i 
thaadarbolt which Hcmed about lo fall toh inti 
tlw (Ir tad di*ap(«red. 

in the dtiee of Pamphylia and Cilicia by hia dig- 
oily of manner, and a few wrillen word*. Uii 
atyle of ipeaking, when hie term of lilcnco bad 

During the neit twenty yenn we heir nothisg 
of Apollonius. But between hii fortieth and 
fiftieth rear ha resolred lo tnirel to lodia, and 
diicloaed hit intention lo hii diwlplei, who w«ra 
KTen in nooiber. In ipile of their remonitranc* 
he paniited, and finally let onl with only two 
altendanta. At Nineveh he met with Damia, 
tha biographer from whom Phiioi.tratiu profeiiea 
to hare taken the greater pail of hii hiatorv, 
and who affend himself Id A[wIloniu* u a guiJo 
and interpreter; but upon A|iolloniui laying Ihat 
he already knew the way and tha languagei of 
all the people who lived on it, and moreortr 

■idered him u a god. (Tn the sequel of lb* 
narrative il appeari, not without inconiiitenej 
on the port of PhlloXniUh that Apolloolu* did 
not ilwayi deirise the aid of an inlerpreter.) 
t>amii slill accompanied him, and put down all hit 
atyingi and doings, in a mda and inelegant atyla. 


From Nineveh ApoUoniiu goes to Babjioo, 
which, contrary to nil anthentic history, he finds 
in its ancient state of imperial magniiiceuce. 
Both on his way there, and while in the city, 
he gives numeroos proofs of his snpematural 
knowledge, and gains a profound and instanta- 
neous reverence fh>m all whom he meets. From 
Babylon he crosses the Caucasus to India ; though 
how this feat, that confounds all geography, is 
performed, Philostratus does not explain. The 
conversation which Apollonius has with Damis 
on the top of the Caucasus is more interesting 
than most of those recorded, as indicating the 
gradual change from a superstitious awe of the 
mountains into a real though slight knowledge 
of their phenomena. Damis ingenuously con- 
fesses that he expected to have come down the 
Caucasus wiser than he went up, considering it 
the dwelling of the gods ; whereupon Apollonius 
replies, ** The prospects from the mountains do 
indeed display the heavens of a deeper azure, 
the stars of a greater magnitude, the sun rising 
out of the darkness, sights &miliar to the shep- 
herds and goatherds ; but neither Athos nor the 
famous Olympus will shew to those who climb 
them what care the Divine Being takes of men, 
nor how it pleases him to be worshipped by 
them ; nor can these things be known but by 
the pure contemplation of the soul." In general, 
the conversations that Apollonius holds with 
Damis shew much more of the straining after 
point, eloquence, and wisdom, than the real pre- 
sence of these qualities. Damis plays very much 
the part of a Simmias, and Apollonius that of a 
Socrates ; and as in his descriptions of the coun- 
tries one may conjecture Philostratus to have had 
Xenophon before his eyes, so in these dialogues 
he very probably imitated Plato— with not much 
success, it is to be admitted. 

The adventures of Apollonius in India, though 
full of prodigies, are of slight interest till he 
meets with the wise men, the Brachmans ; and 
here for the first time he confesses himself in- 
ferior to those whom he meets. He learns from 
them the doctrine of metempsychosis, and having 
learned it, presently remembers and narrates some 
of his own previous states of existence. He is 
extremely astonished at hearing from them a 
full account of himself and his parents; an 
astonishment that might have been mitigated 
had he not chanced to forget his own remark- 
able powers in this line. He asks them, what 
they think of themselves. Jarchas, their chief, 
answers, " We are gods." ** And why gods," asks 
Apollonius. ** Because," said Jarchas, *'we are good 
men " ; an an*>wer not unworthy of being remem- 
bered. He finds these sages pay no special regard 
to the numbers esteemed by Pythagoras, and are 
not afflicted, though their own number is one so 
undistinguished in every way as eighteen. Jar- 
chas expounds to Apollonius his cosmogony, which 
agrees with that of the Stoics in so ^r that the 
world is considered as endued with life, but 
differs from them in not identifying the Divine 
Being with the world ; indeed, throughout the 
whole of this work a very pure monotheism is 
taught, though a place is also left for inferior 
deities. Jarchas after this both relates and per- 
forms numerous prodigies, which need not be 
recapitulated here. 

P.etumiQg from India, Apollonius comes at 
length to Ephesus, where the plague was raging. 


He discovers it to be due to a demon in th« ibnm 
an old beggar, who winked in an eztraordinaary 
manner; and the beggar having (by iiia direo- 
iioa) been stoned, the plague is stay«d. After 
the stoning, a large and wild dog appears where 
the body of the beggar ought to have been. At 
Pergamus Apollonius heals many sick people ; at 
Athens he casts out a devil from a youth who 
was possessed, rebuking him, and commanding 
him to give some sign of his departure; the 
devil answers, " I will make that statue &U " 
(pointing to one in a royal portico), which 
accordingly happens. At Corinth he opens the 
eyes of a young man to an Empusa, or vampire, 
whom he is on the point of marrving, and causes 
the marriage feast to vanish. This, Philostratus 
says, was one of Apollonius's most celebrated 
performances ; yet there was only a general tra- 
dition of it at Corinth. The ** Lamia " of KeaU 
will occur to every one. At Sparta, he rebukes 
the effeminate manners of the people, and recalb 
them to their ancient customs. At Rome, Apol- 
lonius delivers himself from a charge of treason* 
able language against Nero, by causing the 
writing of the indictment to vanish from the 
paper. He then raises from death a young girl 
who was being carried to burial. He next visits 
the pillars of Hercules, where he gives his expla- 
nation of the tides, which is, that the ocean is 
moved by subterranean winds ; from thence he 
proceeds to Syracuse, where from the prodigy of 
a monstrous birth, he prophesies the events that 
happened at Rome aft«r the death of Nero. He 
contemns the mythical account of Eaceladus 
being buried under Aetna, and gives his own 
explanation of the eruptions. At Alexandria he 
meets with Vespasian, who receives him with 
honour, and begs him to make him emperor; 
Apollonius answers, " It is already done ; 1 have 
just prayed to Heaven for an emperor upright, 
generous, wise, and venerable, and you are he." 
Hence came his quarrel with the Stoic philo- 
sopher Euphrates, who wished to restore the 
Roman republic. Philostratus says, Euphrates 
was jealous of him. Apollonius then gave Ves- 
pasian some good but rather commonplace advice 
on the duties of an emperor. But a misunder- 
standing took place between Apollonius and Ves- 
pasian, upon the latter depriving the Greeks of 
their liberty. 

With the Gymnosophists of Ethiopia, whom 
he next visits, Apollonius does not alt<^ether 
agree so well as he had done with the Indians. 
They (having previously been prejudiced against 
him through the machinations of Euphrates) do 
not treat him with equal respect; he on his 
part does not think them equally wise; and 
though after a time they endeavour to propitiate 
him by causing an elm-tree to salute and addrMS 
him courteously, they do not escape without a 
long lecture from the philosopher. On his re- 
turn from Ethiopia he receives a letter from 
Titus (who was then emperor) requesting him 
to come to Argo% and give him some advice. 
Apollonius readily embraces the opportunity, 
and is received with more than cordialitv. But 
upon Domitian's accession, he falls under the sus- 
picion of that tyrant ; not, as appears, altogether 
without reason, for, according to Philostratus, 
he had in some degree joined in conspiracies 
against him. Be that as it may, he was im- 
prisoned and fettered at Rome; whereupon ht 



g»TC Dunk m proof of his miraculous power bj 
ukinf his kg oat of the fetter and putting it 
in again. When brought before Domitian, after 
MMM conrersation and bandying of repartees 
viih th« emperor and the accusers, he Ysnished ; 
•nd appeared the same day to Demetrius and 
OUBts mi Puteoli. Philostratus, however, gires 
a k«g speech that he had composed in his de- 
Imm. After this he retired to Greece, where 
he was receired in a most flattering manner; 
entered the cave of Trophonius ; and being at 
Epheaiu, announced the death of Domitian at 
the moment when it actually occurred. Of the 
death of Apollonius different accounts were given ; 
some said he entered the temple of Minerva at 
Lindas, and disappeared ; others that it was in 
the temple of Diana Dictjuna, and that voices 
of joong maidens were heard, singing, ** Leave 
the earth, come up to heaven," after which he 
was not seen again. After death he is said to 
have appeared to a youne man who was sceptical 
■s to the immortality of the soul (and who had 
prayed to him for enlightenment), and to have 
■stared him of it, at the same time bidding him 
to leave off carious discussions. 

Such is a brief abstract of the life of Apol- 
loaina, by Philostratus. The entire fabulousness 
of it hardly needs to be pointed oat. If any 
other proof were needed than the nature of the 
story itself, the prodigies, the anachronisms and 
geographical blunders, it would be found in the 
entire absence of authority for the facts stated. 
PhilostnUos does indeed profess to found what 
he writos on ^ the records of cities and temples, 
and his own (ApoUonins*) epistles to the Eleans, 
Delpbians, Indians, and Egyptisns;? but the 
cities and temples are nameless, and the genuine- 
ness of any collection of letters of those times, 
till proved, most always be considered more than 
doubtful, from the great prevalence of forged 
letters and treatises in the first centuries after 
Christ. Assuredly Philostratus was not the man 
accurately to distinguish the genuine from the 
sparioas. (Concerning the collection of letters 
attributed to Apollonius and now extant, un- 
doobtedly not the same, though in some points 
coinciding, with that possessed by Philostratus, 
we shall have more to say presently.) Of the 
other aatborities of Philostratus, Maximus of 
Aegae and Moeragenes may be accepted as real 
men ; but the former only related the doings of 
Apoilonios at Aegae, and besides gave a transcript 
ftf his will : while the latter, as we know from 
Origen (^contra Ctis, vi. 41), represented Apollo- 
aius as a nugician, and in other ways gave so 
humble an account of him as moved Philostratus 
to shew considerable anger. If the account of 
Moeragenes had survived, we should probably 
know much more about Apollonius than we do 
bow. On the other hand, Damis is manifestly a 
hctitioos personage, and the book of which he 
vss the reputed author, which (as PhiloHtratus 
says) I>amis gave to a relation, and which through 
this relation was introduced to the knowledge 
of the empress Julia, who handed it on to Philo- 
ftratos to edit, cannot be held as of any his- 
tories J value whatever. 

What, then, can we really be said to know of 
ApoUonins of Tyana? That he was bom at 
Tysna, that he was educated at Aegae, that he 
pr«*f<-Msed PythagoreaniKm, and that he wss a 
Hry well known man of his day for what by the 

common people were taken to be magical arts, 
are the only facts that rest on altogether nnez* 
ceptionable authority. The account of his oppo- 
sition to the Stoic Euphrates may perhaps also 
be taken as authentic His reputation as a 
magician is confirmed by the double authority 
of Moeragenes and Ludan (Psfucfemanlts, ch. b), 
and the great number of the pretenders to this 
kind of power in the first century, a.d., take^ 
away all A priori improbability from the suppo* 
sition that he belonged to the class. Tet we 
are not altogether without reasons for believing 
that he was more than a mere magician, and 
even a philosopher of some considerable insight. 
£usebius {Praap, Bv, p. 150 b) quotes a passage 
from his book ** On sacrifices " (with the reserva- 
tion " Apollonius is mid to write as follows "X 
which if really his is certainly remarkable. The 
passage may be loosely translated as follows : 
** This, then, is the manner in which the Divine 
Power may best be reverenced and propitiated ; 
to God, that God whom we first spoke of^ who 
is one in himself and separate in nature from 
all, to whom all the rest (the other gods) must 
be reckoned subordinate; to him must neither 
sacrifice be offered, nor Are kindled, nor any- 
thing named oi those things which are discerned 
by the senses; for of these things he has no 
need even at the hands of those who are greater 
than ourselves, nor is there any plant or animal 
that is not unclean before him ; but he must be 
approached by that word which is best, the word 
which does not proceed through the lips ; so must 
one entreat him. And the word I speak of is the 
reason, that needs no oi^an of communication." 
Both Kayser and Zeller are inclined to allow the 
authenticity of this extract, which is further 
corroborated by the fact that Plutarch (A'uma, 
ch. 6) attributes a similar doctrine to Pytha- 
goras ; for Plutarch would naturally gain his 
ideas of the doctrine of Pythagoras from the neo- 
Pythagoreans of his time. 

All the authorities after Philostratus that 
speak of Apollonius base their account of him on 
the life by Philostratus; except Origen, who 
quotes Moeragenes. Ilierocles, indeed, mentions 
Maximus of Aegae and Damis, but it does not 
appear that he knew of them except through 
Philostratus. But we must now come to the 
consideration of the only other authority from 
which it is possible that we may lenrn anything 
about Apollonius ; and that is, the collection of 
letters still extant which are attributed to him. 
Professor Jowett (in the Diet, of Gr. and Rom, 
Biogr.) does not appear to consider it altogether 
impossible that these letters may be, at any rate 
in part, genuine; but Kayser and Zeller reject 
them in a summary manner, and by most writers 
on Apollonius they are barely mentioned. Zeller 
goes so far as to say, that they are obviously 
composed to suit the life by Philostratus. We 
do not think that this opinion can be held by 
any one who attentively compares the letters 
with the biography; and we think the proba- 
bility is greatly in favour of the supposition, 
that the letters, whether genuine or not, were 
composed before the work of Philostratus, and 
hence from the earliest and btot authority re- 
specting Apollonius that we hare. In the first 
place, if the letters were comjHtsed by one who 
had the work of Philostratus before him, how 
comes it that there is no trace m the collection 


of snch remarkable letters tm that alluded to bj 
Philostratus in t. 22, in whidi Apollonius is 
said to have rebuked the Athenians for their gla- 
diatorial shows, and refused to attend them ; or 
that in ▼. 2, where he explains the phenomena 
of the tides ; or that to Nerva, in vi. 27 ? Again, 
there are in the collection sereral consecutive 
letters to Scopelianus, but there is not that given 
bj Philostratus in i. 24. Again, Philostratus at 
the very outset of his work declares that Apollo- 
nius wrote many letters to the Eleans, Delphians, 
Indians, and Egyptians, on the subject of their 
deities, countries, morals, and laws: surely a 
most tempting subject for the composer of letters 
to dilate upon. Yet when we look at the collec- 
tion, these four peoples have not much more 
than a letter a-piece, and those neither long nor 
important. The brother of Apollonius is men- 
tioned in the biography as a dissolute man, who 
was brought to better ways by the influence of 
Apollonius, and to whom Apollonius is said to 
have given half his patrimony. Now in the col- 
lection there are several letters inscribed **To 
his brother Hestiaeus," and one '*To his brother 
Apollonius," but in none of them is there the 
smallest hint at the events recorded by Philo- 
stratus, and from only one oould it be at all in- 
ferred that Hestiaeus was inclined to luxury. On 
the contrary, it would appear from at least one 
of the letters to Hestiaeus, that Apollonius had 
been accused of quarrelling with his brother on 
money matters. Again, in the biography by 
Philostratus the Sardians are barel f mentioned ; 
in the collection there are many letters vehe- 
mently attacking them for their vices, and we 
are much mistaken if there is any mention at all 
in the biography of Lesbonax, Crito, Gordius, 
Diotimus, Pherucianus, Valerius, or the magis- 
trates of Caesarea and Seleucia, to all of whom 
letters are found addressed in the collection. 
But the most remarkable difference between the 
letters and the biography, is the almost entire 
absence of any miraculous element in the former. 
In one of the letters to Euphrates, Apollonius 
says that he ''takes away pain, and heals dis- 
eases " {(jmyArttP ^S^rot &^aip«7, icol irci^ 
va^ct); in another he says, "Some men think 
me a god ;'* but these are the only possible allu- 
sions to any supernatural power. Nor are there 
more than one or two of the letters from which 
it would be at all inferred that Apollonius was 
an extensive traveller. The great majority of 
them are addressed to Greeks or Greek commu- 
nities. It should be added, that about nine of 
tbe letters are identical in the biography and in 
the collection; among them are the letters of 
Phmstes and Apollonius to Jarchas, and also 
those to Vespasian and Titus. It is, however, 
almost certain that Philostratus must have got 
these letters from some document prior to his 
own time ; their brevity is in strong contrast to 
the longwinded talk which he himself puts into 
the mouth of his characters. Kayser, indeed, 
adduces the dry and abrupt style of the letters 
in the collection as a proof of their spurious- 
ness. Apollonius, he thinks, would certainly 
have written better. But surely the infer- 
ence is rather the other way, that a composer 
of forged letters would have written in a rhe- 
torical style. 

There are some among these letters that one 
would certainly wish to have been really written 


by Apollonius. The most remarkable perbapi 
are these : one to Euphrates, describing the lilt 
of a Pythagorean philosopher ; one to the magis- 
trates of Seleuda, which begins with a remark- 
ably Christian mode of expression, ^ Straton has 
departed from among men, having left all his 
mortal part here on eartlu But it behoves as 
who are still in a state of punishment, that is 
who still live, to have some care of his affiurs ;" 
a third to his brother Apollonius, which ends in 
a very natural and affecting manner. It is to 
console him on the death of his wife, and after 
producing different topics of consolation, some of 
which sound rather strange to our ears, he adds, 
'* I could not write more than this for my tears " • 

7peb|fai), ** but these are the most prening things 
1 have to say." A fourth is to Valerius, on the 
death of a son, and is noticeable for its arguments 
on the immortality of the souL 

If one is to take any portion of these letters 
as genuine, one must conclude that Apollonius 
was a man of passionate and affectionate tempera- 
ment, a real philosopher and religions reformer, 
and of extensive influence in Greek cities ; but at 
the same time chargeable with arrogance and 
anger towards his opponents, with something 
of a mysterious and dogmatic air, and the 
beginning of a pretence towards snpematunil 
power. And perhaps this is not alU^ther an 
improbable view of his character ; and it is easy 
to see how, as time went on, the magical view of 
his history would gain greater predominance. 
If none of the letters be considered genuine (and 
some of them are to say the least very suspi- 
cious, though it should be noticed that thaw 
which are identical in this collection and in the 
biography do not of themselves imply the mar- 
vellous history which Philostratus tacks on to 
them) then the few bare facts mentioned above 
are all that can be considered certain about Apol- 
lonius ; and it must in this case be left doubtful, 
in what proportion he was a philosopher, and in 
what proportion a magician. To call him aons 
phrase an impostor, as is done by many writers, 
is at any rate premature. 

We must now come to the question, whidb is 
that which has attracted so much attention to 
the histoiT of Apollonius, — what was the moving 
cause of Philostratus' biography ? what was his 
aim ? had he, more especially, any view of attack- 
ing Christianity by setting up a rival to Christ ? 
Hierocles, at the end of the 3rd century, was 
the flrst person who actually applied the work of 
Philostratus to this purpose, as is said expressly 
by Eusebius, who replied to him. The Deists of 
the 18th century, both in France and England, 
renewed the argument in the same sense, but 
with this difference; that whereas Hierocles 
would have had no objection to admit the mi- 
racles both of Christ and of Apollonius, Voltaire 
and Lord Herbert had an equal disbelief in both. 
Naturally, none of these writers held that Phi- 
lostratus wrote in direct imitation of the Gospels, 
as it would have marred their point to do so. 
But equally naturally the orthodox writers, b«»- 
ginning with Huet, bishop of Avranches, and 
coming down through Bishop Douglas and Poley 
to Dr. Rerille in our own day, have considered 
Philostratus a direct though concealed anta- 
gonist of Christianity. This view has been op- 
posed in Germany by Meiners, Neander, Buhle^ 



ad Jaoobi, and in our own oonntry bj 
Mr. WaUoB (^QmUmporary MevieWf February 
1867). An intarmedUte view is held by Bear 
(in his ApolUmiuM von Tyana und ChrutuBy 
Tnbiagca, 1832X which in iU main outline 
will w« think commend itself as by (kr the 
moat probable account. According to this riew 
Philostntiu wrote with no strictly polemical 
rcfirrcsec to Christianity, but, in the eclectic 
spirit of his time, strove to accommodate Chris- 
tianity to the heathen religion. It might indeed 
still bio questioned, eren if this riew were granted, 
how &r Philostratus directly aimed at such an 
acoommodation, or whether it was an indirect 
eAdearour, an object that insinuated itself into 
his wcvrk, rather than its immediate purpose. 
We are onnelves disposed to belieTe, that, with- 
out attributing to Philostratus any formal design 
cither of opposing or assimilating Christianity, 
he was yet moat strongly influenced by its ideas 
tmd history. 

What is tilt oentral aim of this biography 
of Apollonius ? Surely it is this : the setting 
Ibrth, not mertly of wise precepts in the ab- 
stract, but of an example of supreme wisdom 
lor humanity to imitate. It is not implied by 
this that Philostratus considered Apollonius as 
entirely and necessarily unique among men ; but 
it is Lmpliad that he considered him as more than 
a mere teacher of doctrine, as a pattern to men 
Ib hia own pcnoa, as one in whom wisdom and 
iroth were incorporate. He wished men to 
howmr Apolloniua himself^ and not merely to 
study or beliere certain truths delivered by Apol- 
kaioa. This cannot, we think, be doubted by any 
••c who reflects on the whole tone of the book. 
ApoUonina is called ** divine ;'* his disciples stand 
in an altogether different relation to him from 
that in which the disciples of Socrates stand to 
Socrates ; they do not argue with him as equals 
with an equal ; they follow him, listen to him, 
are rebuked by bina. His miracles, again, do not 
result from his being in possession of anv secret 
eommunicable to other men, but arise from his 
own nature and wisdom. Such a character must 
remind us, however different in some respects, 
of the Christ of the Gospels. But can it be 
shewn that any character like this, or approach- 
ing to this, was drawn by any heathen writer 
before Christ, or in the 1st century after Christ ? 
We think not. Philosophy and magic, the search 
after knowledge and the search aAer power, 
were fiuniliar to men who had never heard of 
Christianity; but this ideal is difierent from 
either, and from both of them united. Those who 
affirm that Philostratus never thought of the 
Christian history in his work, say that he in- 
tended Apollonius as a rival to Pvthagoras. That 
he did connect Apollonius and Pythagoras, is 
certain, for he pats them together at the outset 
of hia work. But this only puts the question a 
stage larther back. For by whom was Pytha- 
goras portrayed, we do not say merely as the 
hero of a marvellous history (for this is a sub- 
erdinate part of the matter X but as this super* 
human ideal ? Not certainly by any writer of 
the octtturies before Christ. Even Plutarch 
(.Vamo, ch. viiL) only knows of marvellous 
events occurring to or connected with Pytha- 
goras; be knotrs of no miracles actually per- 
formed by him, much less does he set him up as 
an Idnnl aiamplar. Is it possible that the age 

of Caracalla and Severus, so eclectic, so tradi- 
tional, so unoriginal, can of its own mere motion 
have gone off into this new and unheard-of line ? 
Unheard of, that is, unless we suppose it to hava 
been borrowed from Christianity. We hold it 
certain, therefore, that it was borrowed from 

But of course it admits of a question, whether 
it was Philostratus himself, or the author whom 
he adapted and refined, that had the chief 
hand in this borrowing. But it seems to us 
probable, that Philostratus was at any rate con- 
scious of the imitation. First, the Christians 
were not in those days by any means an unknown 
sect ; so well known were they, that Alexander 
Severus (with a singular parallelism to the s|ip- 
posed conduct of Philostratus) placed Christ 
with Abraham, Oi'pheus, and Apollonius himself, 
among his household gods. Secondly, the resem- 
blance to the Oospel histories is in particular 
instances very broad indeed. The miraculous 
birth of Proteus, and the circumstances attend- 
ing it; the healing of demoniacal possessions, 
(was the idea of such possessions in any way 
familiar to the Greeks ?) the raising of the dead ; 
the appearance of Apollonius to two of his dis- 
<'iples after his deliverance from Domitian ; his 
ascent to heaven, and appearance after his death ; 
these are points of similarity that cannot ba 
evaded: aad taken together with the oentral 
idea of the book, they seem to imply that Phi- 
lostratus was not an unconscious copybt of one 
who had taken the Gospels as his model, but 
was himself aware of the imitation. 

It is, however, a question of quite subordinate 
importance, what was the intention of Philo- 
stratus personally in his book, what portion of 
his mental horizon was occupied by Christianity. 
And in order to dismiss him as soon as possible, 
we may remark, that if he had had any very 
direct purpose in relation to Christianity, the 
application of it could hardly have been deferred 
till the time of Hierocles and Eusebius. The 
analogy of Porphvry. at once the author of a 
marvellous life of P3rthagoras and a vehement 
opponent of the (Christians, might indeed suggest 
a similar combination in Philostratus ; but this 
is not a suggestion that can stand in the place of 
proof, which here is entirely wanting ; and Por- 
phyry himself, vehement, fiery, and mystical, 
was an utterly different man from the easy, 
gentlemanly, courtierlike Philostratus, who, one 
may guess, would have thought it a lowering of 
his dignity to meddle with a class so distinctly 
belonging to the inferior classes of society as did 
the Christians of his time. 

The real point of interest, however, lies in the 
inquiry whether the main idea and outline of 
these wonderful histories of Pythagoras aud 
Apollonius were borrowed from the Christian re- 
cords, or not. To this question we have already 
replied decidedly in the affirmative. It should 
be noticed, that the very striking resemblances 
between the biography of Apollonius and the 
Grospels are resemblances in externals ; the inner 
spirit of the two is entirely different. It would 
take us too long here to enter upon a detailed 
comparison of them in this respect ; it must be 
sufficient to remark, that in the one we iind the 
temperate, self-contained philosophic spirit, strik- 
ing even in its dilution, and amid all the rhetone 
ai^ tawdry marvels with which Philostratnt 


has dressed it ; in the other, the spirit of the Perhaps this is the ApoUos t disciple of Pl»- 

insufficiency of self. chomius {Vit. Pachom, ap. Roew. V, P, c. 18), 

Besides the collection of letters, and the and there are curioos coincideneet in detail 

treatise Tf Arral 1^ vcpl BvatAVf mentioned above, which make it probable that this is also the 

there are ascribed to Apollonios the following ApoUos (not the Apollonins) mentioned in Sox. 

works ; a hymn to Memory, a life of Pythagoras (Hist. vi. 29) and in Niceph. (zi. 34). If, as is 

(mentioned by Porphyry and lamblichus as the not unlikely, he was one of the monks conse- 

work of ^ Apollonios, by Suidas as the work of crated by Athanasins, he may be identified with 

** Apollonius of Tyana "), a book entitled IlvOa- the Apollos (Ath. ad Drac 210), Egyptian 

T^pov S^^oi, a treatise 'v«pi fuurrtiau iior4pv¥ bishop, present at the councils of Tyre and 

and XpufffioL Sardica (Ath. Ap, c. Ar, 133, 154), and exiled 

Those who wish to examine the whole question by George of Alexandria (Ath. ad Jt<m. 306). 
respecting Apollonius at length should consult He is commemorated on Jan. 25. [I. G. S.3 
Baur's Apollonius von Tyana und Christua (Tu- 
bingen 1832); Kayser's Philoatratus, and Zeller's APOLOGISTS. I. Oensrat view of the Apo- 
Philosophie der Oriechen, Other writers on the logists and their vwk. Under this name are 
subject have been noticed in this article, or are included the earlier Christian writers against 
to be found in the books above mentioned. Paganism and Judaism, though it applies more 

[I. R.M.] properly to the former. Their work was rather 

APOLLONIUS, an Egyptian monk of the ^^« defence of Christians than of ChristUnity. 

fourth century, famed for humility and as an A faith active and aggressive, xealous to overturn 

exorcist. Several of his sayings are recorded **»« religion with which the associations of the 

(Ruff, de Verb. Sen. 25 ; Gr. Inc. ap. Rosw. V. P. P«op»« *»<! the institutions of the State were 

V. 5, 4). Possibly this is the Apollos who, being entwined, sparing neither popular vices nor po- 

one of the monks raised to the episcopacy by P^^a*" amusements, provoked a hatred which at 

Athanasius, is spoken of by him as an Egyptian on^e justified and strengthened itself by blacken- 

bishop, present at the Councils of Tyre and Sar- »*»g *»»« character of the Christians. Reftising to 

dica (Ath. Ap. c. Ar. 133, 154), who is men- wcrifice to the gods, they were thought a com- 

tioned below. [Apollos.] [I. G. S.] munity of atheists, capable of any crime. All 

. -r^^, » ^«^*wTr^ T» , » . ^^^ **^ wickedness were therefore attributed to 

APOLLONIUS, a Roman senator, who being them ; and out of distorted accounts of their fra- 
accused of being a Christian c a.d. 186, wrote and ternal love, secret assemblies, worship, and sacra- 
delivered in full senate an apology for the faith, ^ents, were made up horrible tales of incest, 
for which St. Jerome reckons him second in order ^hild murder, and cannibalism. Influenced by 
of time among the Utin Fathers. He was never- these slanders, and regarding opposition to the 
theless beheaded as one that persisted m the faith, g^ate religion as seditious, the authorities, if they 
although his accuser WM put to death for ac- did not excite the violence of the popuUce, were 
cusing him (Euseb. H. E. v. 21; a Hieron. de i^tle solicitous to check it; and though the ca- 
Script. Ecd. 42; Act. SS. April 18, and Ruinart lumnies against the Church were not the prime 
73 sq.). [A. W. H.J causes of persecution, yet since they were ever 

APOLLONIUS. (1) An imaginary bishop of put forward as iU reason and jnstitication, the 

Corinth, referred to by •• Praedestinatus " (i. 23). Christians could not but feel that, were these 

(2) An imaginary bishop of Ephesus (i'». 26-27) refuted, there would be some chance of that fair 

[See APOLLONIUS, p. 135.] (8) A " companion " hearing and common justice, which were now 

of one of the Antonines, who vainly tried to per- denied them ; and that, if the emperor could be 

suade Bardeman to abjure Christianity (Epiph. once made conscious of the cruel wrongs perpe- 

ffatr. 477). [11.] trated in his name, he might be induced to in- 

A T»/^T T rkVTTTTa /t\ k — J * r terfere. The first Apologies, therefore, are 

APOLLOmiS (1) A corre.pondent of „.i„iy ^tended » yiadlation. of the ChrirtiM. 

Theodoret ., probably not a Chmtian, to whom f^^ {^^^ g,,^ «cca«tlon5 brought i«.in.t them ; 

he wrote commending the excellence of h.< n.- ^^t .„ch a defence natumllr p.^ Int. th^ 

toral endowment., and urging an acknowledg- ^g-cnsive; ^.pedally when the Wrt deed, in- 

ment of the Giver. (Theodt, hp. 73.) * j u A f » i. ^ u • al 

/o. r^ * u r \ ^r 4U« V s, ' AAn j Vented by the calumniators were told m the 

(2) Count, Pi-aefect of the Last in 442, and _ 4. 1 • * ^u j ^ ^- ^' _* 

ffreat chamberlain to whom Theodoret irote ™y<*»oJog»«» ^f ^he very gods, for rejection of 

great chamberlain, to whom ineodoret wiote whom the Christians were counted atheists. The 

with reference to the calumnies spread asainst »!•* _au ija a**u' 

4 ^, . .. , /rp, ,. X, -rtox tr Apolozists were thus led to contrast their own 

mm at Constantinople. (Theodt. £p. 103.) He *j ^if . * f u • au u 1 j 

wa. in office at the Council of Chilcedon^ 451. ""I/k "%':^!!r"*''|l,'^"8'"' i *■■!.?" ^"^^l^^ 

(Ubbe, Cmca. Iv. 851, &c) [E^ V.] ^L >m ? ' '"'l?^?"'? "* ""'"S " '^^ 

^ ' * ^ *• •* the noblest conceptions of all philosophy; cn- 

APOIjLOS (or -onius), St., a famous Egyptian forcing every virtue, and forbidding even the 
monk of the 4th century. He embraced the thought of sin, and that under the most tre- 
monastic life when only fifteen years old, and mendous sanctions : the other so gross and sense- 
after many years of utter seclusion established less as to shock some amongst the heathens 
himself in the Thebaid tct the head of five themselves; self-contradictory and degrading, 
hundred ascetics. By his reputation for sane- ascribing to its divinities such immorality that 
tity and for miraculous powers he made many it seeme^l only framed to countenance vice. The 
converts, and among others a notorious robber- one ofl'ered a holy and reasonable service, the 
chief, and had great infiuence with the pagans, other a dark and cruel worship, stained with 
Though most austere to himself, he was cour- lust and blood. No less opposed were the fruiU 
teous and hospitable to others. He lived to a which each bore in its votaries ; the slandered 
great age (Ruff, de Mon. 7 ; Pall. Hist. Laus. Christians leading lives of patience purity holi« 
52; Soz. Hist. iii. 14- Niceoh. Hist, ix. 14.) ness and love, exalted courage, and heavenly 




wbdem; while the heathen neither truly feared 
their own gods, nor regarded man; living in 
malioe and wickedneea, hateful, and hating one 
another. Kor did Gentile philosophy pass nn- 
eeaiured ; ita pretensions were great, its per- 
formances sBiall, its doctrines mutually contra- 
dictory, and supported on no better evidence 
than the dicta of its respective schools : its mo- 
rality waa often moat defective, and its professors 
■ot unfrcqaently the wickedest of men. What- 
ever of truth it might contain was but taken at 
secondhand from Revelation, and might there be 
found in purity and fulness, built on the infal- 
lible authority of God Himself. That authority 
is, with the Apol<^ts, always the ultimate 
foundation of £iith ; the philosophical arguments 
which they use being but introductory and illus- 
trative, or designed to remove prejudices and 
show thai the Christian dogmas are not irra- 

IL Apologetic wrUmgi agamd Paganism, 1. Of 
theae the earliest are appeals in behalf of the 
sudiering Christians, addressed to the emperor, 
the scnata, or other public authorities. The 
first record e d are those of Quadratus (of which 
but a single fragment remains) and Aristides 
(wholly lost, but described as referring largely 
to the Gentile phlloeophersX both of which are 
said to have been delivered to Hadrian during 
his stay in Greece, A.D. 131. Next come the 
Apolo^itM of Justin Martyr, about ▲.D. 160 (ac- 
cording to Cave, Lif€ of JuttiHf c. 8); an A/w- 
loyy addreased by Melito, bishop of Sardis, to M. 
Aorelius Antoninus, about A.l>. 170 (on the 
** Oration of Meliton the Philosopher to Anto- 
alAOS Cftsar," Coreton, Spidleg, JSyr, p. 7 ; see 
Melito); and that of Athenagoras. a-d. 176- 
180. Amongst the Latins, we have Tei*tidlian's 
Apoiogeticut adverius Sationet, between a.d. 173 
and 202, followed by his smaller treatise. Ad 
Hatiuma : and Cyprian's Letter to Demetrimus^ 
a.D. 246. This series- may be not unfitly closed 
vith the thanks addressed by Lactantius, at the 
beginning of his Inatitutkmes Divmae (A.D. 320) 
to Constant ine, for the rest which his accession 
kid brought to the Church. 

2. Treatises apologetic or polemical, in the 
form of letters, explanations, or replies addressed 
Uf individoais. Of this sort are the Letter to 
bingmeiuM (q. T-X and the three books of Theo- 
I«hilos AdAutolycumy about a.d. 181. The Utin 
dialogue of Minucius Felix (beginning of Hrd 
ctnl.X. called Octatiut from one of its interlocu- 
tor*, may belong to this class of works, supposing 
this Octaritts to have been a real person, and the 
<!ktlogue actuallv intended for his use. We may 
uli Cyprian's short work On the grace of Ood, 
•direased to the neophyte Donatus (that On the 
\amU^ of Idol* is closely connected with the 
(A-tavtua^ and with Tertullian's Apoiogtticua)^ 
sni finally the poetical letter of Paulinus of Nola 
to hi* former friend Ausonius. 

3. Polemical, hortatory, or didactic works in- 
tcnled for the educated public, with no special 
or indiridaal inscription. These may include 
the treatise of Athenagoras On the JUtvurtctiim^ 
the four works of doubtful authorship, usually 
published with those of Justin, vis. De Momarchia^ 
OratuM ad Oraecoi, Cohortatio ad Oraecoe^ and the 
fragmentary treatise On the Beeurrection : Ta- 
tiaa's Oraiicm to the Qreeke^ probably written in 
tke nign of Macau Anielina* the LUber Adhor^ 

tatoriue ad Qraeoot of Clemens Alexandrinus, 
about A.D. 190; the Irrisio GentUium fhiloso- 
phorum of Hermias, about the same date ; Hip- 
polytus' Philosophumena (3rd cent.), and two 
apologetic works of Athanasius, supposed to date 
about A.D. 319, Oratio oontra GenteSf and De In" 
camatione Verhi, 

4. Writings against individual defenders of 
heathenism. One of the first of this class is the 
vigorous work of Origen Against Celaus, pub- 
lished about A.D. 249, long posterior to Celsus' 
True Account, which called it forth. The 15 
books of Porphyry against the Christians pro- 
duced a great number of replies, according to 
Lucius Dexter at least 30; some of the most im- 
portant of the writers being Methodius, bishop 
of Patara (whose work, according to Jerome, 
£p, ad Magnum, was in verse); Eusebius of 
Caesarea ; and Apoliinaris of Laodicea, of whom 
only a small fragment remains (4th cent.). Phi- 
lostorgius in his Ecclesiastical History, z. 10, 
mentions a work of his own against Porphyry. 
To these may be added the 8 bwks of Diodorus 
of Tarsus (died a.d. 394) Against the Fatalists, — 
assailing Plato, Aristotle, and Porphyry, of which 
some fragments remain. The strange admissions 
found in Porphyry's own writings, concerning 
the character of some of the gods, the oracles, 
kc, furnished many arguments against his own 
cause ; which have been used by Theodoret, I)e 
Curandis Graecorum Affectibus, Serm. 3 ; by Eu- 
sebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, iv. cc. 7, 16. and 
by Augustine, De Cirit. Dei, z. cc 26, 27. Euse- 
bius also in his work Against Hierocles assails on 
external and internal grounds the parallel which 
that writer sought to draw between Christ and 
Apollonius Tyanaeus. The books of Julian, now 
lost, in defence of paganism, which occupied him 
till the Persian war, A.D. 3G3, had many answers ; 
among which we may notice that of Cyril ad- 
dressed to the emperor Theodosius, On the pure 
Leligion of the Christians (end of 4th cent.), 
Gregory Nazianzen's Invectives against the Em" 
peror Julian, about A.D. 363, and the Sermon of 
Chrysostom On S, Babylas and against Julian, 
preached about A.D. 383, consequently 20 years 
after Julian's death. 

5. The course of apologetic and polemical 
writings in the Eastern Church closes with the 
work De Curandis Graecorum Affect ibus, directed 
by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, (who died A.l». 
457) against the false views of Christianity pre- 
valent in the heathen world ; summing up and 
arranging the argument of foregoing apologist ». 
Several L^tin works of like sort belong to the 
time when the Christian faith began to triumph ; 
they justify the change that was coming over 
the Empire, and deal the last blows to heathenism, 
which, though no longer favoured, and at la^t 
actually opposed by the State, yet found some ad- 
herents and defenders. The seven books of Amo- 
bius Contra Gentes fall in the period of the last 
persecution, preceding the accession of ( onstan- 
tine — probably between A.D. 297 and a.d. 303 ; 
and the Institutiunea Divmae of lactantius appear 
to have been published about a.d. 320. Both of 
these authors gather up and systematize what 
had been already said against the old supersti- 
tion ; the former commencing with an answer to 
the then common objection, that Christianity 
was the cause of all the calamities of the times. 
With these, on account of its similar scope, we 



may place the greatly inferior work of Firmicns 
Maternus, D« Krrore Profanarum Beligtonttnif 
addressed to the sons of Constantine about, or 
subsequently to, the year A.D. 350. Several 
minor pieces follow : as, the letter of Ambrose to 
Valentinian, against the restoration of an altar 
of Victory petitioned for by Symmachus, A.D. 
880; that of Paulinas of Nola to Jorius, on 
Providence J against the philosophical theories of 
fate and of chance : besides a poem Adversue 
OmttiUse^ by one Antonius, of whom nothing 
seems to be known, but for whose name Fabri- 
cius appears to hare read that of the poet 
Ausonius, whom he supposes to hare embraced 
Christianity. The concluding name among the 
Western Apologists is that of Augustine, the 
bishop of Hippo, whose 22 books, De Chitate 
Dei, form a complete polemical treatise, opening 
like that of Amobius with a reply to the paganr 
favourite charge, that the Christians were ruin- 
ing the State; and proceeding to contrast the 
Church, as the Divine commonwealth, with the 
kingdoms of this world, particularly with the 
Roman Empire. 

III. Writingt against the Jews. 1. Oreek, 
The earliest of these is the so-called Epietle of 
St, Barnabas upon the types of the Law, of not 
later date than A-D. 110 — probably of the time 
of Vespasian : next came a lost Dialogue of Jason 
and Papiscus, before the middle of the 2nd cent., 
mentioned by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, and 
by Maximus ascribed to Aristo Pellaeus ; Justin 
Maityr*s Dialogtie toith Trypha, probably written 
not long before his death; the Demonstration 
adversus Judaeos of Hippolytus (died A.D. 230), 
chiedy upon Ps. Ixix. ; Eusebius' Demonstratio 
£vangelioa ; of Gregory of Nyssa (died A.D. 395), 
Teatunonia adversus Judaeos ; of Chrysostom (died 
A.D. 407), Demonstratio adversus Judaeos et Gen- 
tiles (in proof of Christ's divinity), and seven Ho- 
miltes against the JevrSy in great measure against 
Judaizers within the Church. Of Philippus of 
Tida, contemporary of Chrysostom, there remains 
a Narrative of a Disputation concerning Christ held 
in Persia between Christians, Jews, and Heathens : 
and under the name of Cyril of Alexandria there 
parses a short piece Against the Jews, containing 
the solution of eight questions on supposed diffi- 
culties in the Law. It is extant only in the 
Latin. Qregentins, archbishop of Taphra (6th 
cent.) has left a Disputation with fferbanus, a 
Jew, Besides these more directly controversial 
works (to which we may add the answers of 
Origen in the two first of his books against 
Celsus, to the objections put by that writer into 
the mouth of a JewX replies to various argu- 
ments and expositions of Scripture put forward 
by the Jews, are to be found in the Commen- 
taries of Origen, Eusebius on the Psalms and 
Isaiah, Chrysositom, Theodoret on Daniel, and 

2. Latin writings. Of Tertullian there is a work 
Against the Jews, composed on the occasion of a 
d ispu te between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte ; 
of Cyprian, Testimonial adversus Judaeos; with a 
work under his name, but of uncertain author- 
ship, in answer to the Jewish attacks upon Christ. 
Novatian, whose schism dates from A.D. 251, has 
left a letter C>n Jewish Meats ; and of Ambrose's 
letters, the 72nd, 73rd, 74th, and 76th treat of 
the relation between the 0. T. ordinances and 
the Gospel. Expositions of prophecy, &&, spe- 


dally directed against the Jewish interpretations 
are to be found in Augustine, de Cir. Dei, and 
in the exegetical works of Jerome. We may in- 
clude in this list such attacks upon Judaism as 
occur in the Institt. Divin, of Lactantius. 

Of these writers, Greek and Latin, most have 
expounded or vindicated the Christian interpre- 
tation of prophecy and types. Justin, Tertul- 
lian, Irenaeus, defended the supernatural birth of 
Christ ; and Justin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, 
and Augustine His Divinity. The three first of 
these asserted the abolition of the Law ; the 
pseudo-Barnabas, Justin, Tertullian, Origen, No- 
vatian, Ambrose, Augustine, and Epiphanius treat 
of its spiritual import and interpretation. 

IV. The Apologists and the popular religion. 
Various theories were extant, amongst the 
heathens, of the origin and right interpretation 
of their mythology. The Stoics taught that it 
was allegorical of truth, natural or moral : others, 
in accordance with the suggestion of Euhemerus, 
looked on its gods as men deified by their pos- 
terity, and sought an historical groundwork in ita 
legends ; which others, again, received as literally 
true, but descriptive of the acts of certain de- 
mons, intermediate between gods and men (cf. 
Plhto, Sympos. c. 23, p. 202 D; Plutarch, /sis and 
OsiriSj c. 25). The first of these views the Apo- 
logists reject, remarking by the way, that if the 
gods only represented the element^ and powers 
of nature they were not proper objects of worship, 
nor was there any need to nave expressed these 
in allegories so gross and immoral. The second 
and third they adopt either combined or as altera 
native solutions ; inclining on the whole to the 
last. They were accustomed to hear the myths 
treated as realities by the people, and accepted 
the idea the more readily, as they identified these 
demons with the fallen angels of the Scriptures, 
or with the souls of the antediluvian giants, 
whom they conceived to have sprung from the 
union of the evil angels with human wives. 
These wicked spirits were the authors of all the 
prodigies and supernatural powers ascribed to the 
images of the gods ; and the inventors and main- 
tainers of the system of paganism ; a system, with 
which the Apologists did not deny that some truth 
was mixed : remarkable coincideuces were to be 
found, between certain legends and some parts 
of Christian teaching ; but these had been intro- 
duced by the demons themselves to add spe- 
ciousness to their lie, and, by forestalling, to 
lessen the effect of the truth. The poets them- 
selves show at times a trace of the pure pri- 
mitive faith in the one, holy, almighty God; 
the best amongst them, as well as amongst the 
philosophers had revolted at the character of 
some myths, which they denounced as slanders 
upon the Godhead. It was not the Christians, 
for following their example, but the heathen, for 
suffering such tales to be told of their gods, who 
were properly to be charged with impiety. 

The grossuess and folly of these fables supply 
the Apologists' chief weapon of offence ; and they 
attack Polytheism as it appears in mythology, 
rather than in the abstract. The Unity of God 
is maintained by Athenagoras {Apot. c 8) from 
the definition of the Deity as an Essence self- 
existent, simple, and perfect, the Maker and Con- 
tainer of the universe : by Origen {Against Celsus, 
i. 23), Athanasius (contra Gentea, cc. 37-39), 
Lactantius (^Instt, Div, L 3), from the unity aiul 


of Creation; hy Minocias Felix (Octa- 
c 8X and Cyprian {De Idohrum VamtaUf c 
5) from the neoeMitj of an undirided supreme go- 
Tcmmcnt ; by Gregory of NysM {Oratio Cateche- 
UoOj ProotmJ) opon the ground that perfection 
•zdades plurality, since all perfect beings would 
be coincident or identical ; and also by Magnes 
(T. Pitra, Sjricil, Soletm. I 308). 

Another specially vulnerable point in Paganism 
was the nature of its worship — its images and 
sacrifictt. To the Christian attacks upon idolatry 
the heathens gave the answer, common still, that 
the statut was not regarded as the god, but only 
aa his representation, and the proper way of access 
to him ; but how, ask the Apologists, does this 
defence eerre, when the statue is that of some 
man, not long deceased, to which you yet ascribe 
miracles? (Athenag. Apol. c. 18, c. 23 sq.). It 
must be here the image with which you connect 
the wonders ; for dead men do no prodigies ; and 
of these the real cause is Satanic power. Your 
idols, of necessity more modem than the art of 
statuary, are absurd innovations ; and these yon 
honour with a service no less absurd — the 
slaughter of beasts, — whether for your gods' food 
or amusement does not appear. Fitter worship 
for a spiritual God is the Christian's self-dedica- 
tion in holiness, hit reasonable and unbloody 
sacrifice I 

The persecutions suffered by the Christians in 
enriier times, and the disasters which befell the 
empire after its conversion were sometimes urged 
as objections to the truth of their religion, as if, 
had theirs been the true God, He must have 
protected his servants: to which it is usually 
replied, that the Christians' portion being in 
leaven, earthly troubles did not touch it, nor 
seriouftly harm them, but often the reverse. The 
calamities of that day had nothing which marked 
them as any more special tokens of dirine wrath, 
than those of former times ; besides, as earthly 
eriU were to heathens far more terrible things 
than to Christians, why should the gods, pro- 
voked by the sins of the latter, punish them with 
visitations which fell most heavily on their own 
worshippers ? 

V. TheApohgi9t$andthePhiio9ophert, Gentile 
phi]nM|ihy was a subject that gave room for 
great diderences of opinion among the Christians, 
of whom some, as Hermias (/ruwo Gent. PhU.), 
Tertulli-in {Apoloifft. cc 46, 47), and notably 
Titian {^hmtwun to the Greeks, cc. 1-3), treated 
it as a medley of folly contradictions and hypo- 
crisy ; whiUt others, e.g, Athenagoras {Apol. c. 
7, p. 8 A), and Justin (in reference to Plato, Ap. 
1. c 59) well-nigh claim the best of the old 
sae^ as fellow champions for the truth. The 
milder view found perhaps mo«t favour, at least 
with the more learned Christians; but none 
thoQi^ht the light of philosophy really com- 
(•.irable to that of revelation, or the adherents 
Of* its opposins; sects all equally hone«t seekers 
after tnith. Like Socrates, some of our writers 
call attention to the contradictory schemes by 
which it fought to explain the phenomena of the 
outwari world ; and then proceed to its mutually 
destructive ethical theories, of which one selected 
as the chief good what another denied to be a 
g'kod at all: — pleasure, virtue, knowledge, con- 
formity with nature, had all found assertors; 
3p<i at last a sect arose which denied the {>ossi- 
bility of kaowlcdge, and so cut away the founda- 



tions of philosophy altogether. If an ignorant 
man had to choose the right instructor amid all 
this strife, he needed, in order to make the 
choice, to be at starting wiser than all the phi- 
losophers themselves. 

The Christian estimate of the comparative 
merits of the several schools — where any merit 
at all is acknowledged — seldom varies. The 
earlier natural philosophers, e.g. the Atomists, 
seem to be reganled as idle and atheistical spe- 
culators, whose disagreement showed them to 
have all missed the truth. Pythagoras does not 
find much favour, though sometimes adduced as 
a witness for the unitv of God, and his fate 
taken as an instance of the persecution which 
the good have always suffered (Athenag. ApoL c 
31, p. 35 ▲) ; for his doctrine of the transmigra- 
tion of souls into the bodies, it might be, of 
beasts, was revolting to those who looked for a 
resurrection to immortality. The Sophists are 
scarcely noticed, save w Tertullian's odd mistake 
oMIippias the tyrant for his philosophic name- 
sake {Apologet. c. 45). 9ut Socrates and still 
more Plato occupy a position of exceptional 
favour. The life and moral teaching of Socrates, 
his opposition to the popular religion, and his 
martyr-like death commanded the admiration of 
the (Thristians ; but as they seem to have distin- 
guished the real Socrates from the representa- 
tion of him given by Plato, his great disciple 
attracted more of their attention. They were 
moreover offended by the ** heuiUpiw ** or ** divine 
intimation" of which he speaks, and which they, 
like Apuleius, took to mean " familiar spirit ;" 
and, singularly enough, so high was their esti- 
mate of the enlightenment which be possessed, 
that they almost censured his compliances with 
the state religion, as apostasy. The highest 
place amongst philosophers was accorded to Plato, 
in consequence of his teaching concerning God as 
the supreme and essential Good, the " Logos," 
or divine intelligence seen in Creation, the dis- 
tinction between objects of thought and of sense, 
the essence of the soul and other spiritual beings, 
and the nature of true happiness, unaffected by 
outward ills; and, perhaps most of all, for his 
emphatic condemnation of the mythologv. In 
the Letters ascribed to him (Plutonic Epp. ii. 
312 e) he was believed to express his faith in 
somewhat like a Trinity ; his genuine works them- 
selves being probably read in the light of Philo's 
philosophv, and, by the later Apologists, in that 
of New Piatonism, which put upon its master's 
words a sense that brought them into still nearer 
accord with Christianity. The Christians, how- 
ever, condemned his doctrines on the eternity of 
matter (as being moulded only, not created by 
Go<l) ; and on the relation of the sexes, as brought 
out in the Republic. The Apologists, whose 
views we are considering, approve in great mea- 
sure his account of the soul's nature, but utterly 
reject the idea of its pre-existence, which he re- 
garded as essential to its immortalitv (on the 
principle that whatever has had a begiuning 
must also have an end): and maintain on the 
contrary, that the power and will of God which 
gave the soul being at the first, still maintain 
it in existence; whence they have been repre- 
sented as teaching that the soul is not natu- 
rally immortal. Their scanty mention of Aris- 
totle is somewhat surprising. Amidst the Pla- 
toniam of the eclectic Athenagoras, we recognise 




the Aristotelian doctrine of the mean (Jtesurr. 
c 21, p. 64 B), and by the same Apologist h* i^ 
cited as holding the Unity of God ; but he dis- 
pleased the Christians by his views of providence, 
and by making the supreme good consist in hap- 
piness; happiness, too, for the attainment of 
which various outward advantages were indis- 
pensable. His philosophy was so strongly phy- 
sical, as to lie in great part out of the Christians' 
range of thought ; and the ethical systems with 
which they came most in contact were those of 
the later schools. The Peripatetics, doing little 
more than elaborate Aristotle's opinions, are also 
little noticed ; and seldom but in reference to ob- 
jectionable tenets ascribed to particular adherents 
of the school. The Academics are chiefly cited 
for their scepticism, as witnesses against all phi- 
losophy. The Epicureans were far more pro- 
minent, and receive unqualified condemnation, 
as subverters of all piety and morals ; although 
the distinction between their view and that of 
the Cyrenaics, on pleasure as the chief good, is 
not overlooked (Athen. Retnrr, c. 19, p. 62 B). 
The opposing sect of the Stoics, celebrated as it 
was amongst the ancients for its ethics, b not 
very favourably regarded by the Christians. Its 
pantheistic allegorizing of the myths, its denial 
of a particular providence and of any intelligible 
rewajtis and punishments in a future life, its 
sanction of suicide, and its cold proud spirit, 
conspired to produce an aversion which the high 
moral tone of individual Stoics could not remove. 
The definition of a virtuous life as ** according to 
nature *' was not always understood, being some- 
times taken to mean an imitation of the beasts ; 
and now and then we find doctrines charged on 
the Stoics which can hardly be reconciled with 
their known principles. It must be allowed that 
the high pretensions of this school, contrasted 
with the lives of some of its adherents, laid it 
open more than other sects to the charge of 
hypocrisy, alike from the satirist and the. Chris- 

We thus see that educated Christians did not 
regard Gentile philosophy as wholly in the 
wrong, but rather as having attained, in certain 
schools, to some measure of truth. This was 
partly attributed to Divine illumination — not 
indeed that the philosophers were thought to 
have had prophetic inspiration (though this was 
certainly believed of the Sibyl), but to have 
been more or less aided by the Holy Spirit's 
grace; and some Christians thought that use 
had been made of the Jewish Scriptures by Plato; 
whom they even supposed, by an anachronism 
which Augustine exposes, to have been a hearer 
of Jeremiah in Egypt. Satanic thefts and pa- 
rodies of revelation were also surmised here, as 
in the mythology. 

VI. 2'ke Apologists and the Jews. In reason- 
ing with Jews, the first matter of importance 
was to show that the Christians had not forgot- 
ten the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For 
they were encountered at once with the objec- 
tion, that while professing to serve Him, they 
had discarded all observance of His law. The 
Apologists' reply is, that the law was not of 
eternal obligation, but intended from the first 
as a temporary dispensation, preparatory to one 
more perfect — the type and shadow of those 
spiritual blessings, which were to be seen in 
their reality in the Christian Church. There 

(Aug. de CMt, Dei) was to be found the triM 
circumcision of the heart. The law had in all 
things ended in Christ, and the fleshly been re- 
placed by the spiritual Israel — the new com- 
monwealth antitypical to the former one, and 
foretold from the very flrst in the promise to 
Abraham, and Jacob's blessing upon Judah, be- 
sides many prophecies of the fruitfulness of the 
barren and the desolate ; its relation to the old 
polity was symbolized in the histories of Sarah 
and Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, 
Hannah and Peninnah, and the houses of Saul 
and David. The law had not been needed by 
the saints who lived before it was given (Tertull. 
against the Je\cs)\ and a new kw, lawgiver, 
priesthood, and sacrifice were spoken of in the 
Scriptures (Cyprian, Test, adv. Jud.) as succeed- 
ing it. 

In answer to the next Jewish objection, that 
the Christians worshipped other gods besides 
Jehovah, reference was made' to such records of 
Divine words or acts as implied a plurality of 
Persons in the Godhead ; or described the mani- 
festations of One who was at once Jehovah and 
Jehovah's Messenger, e. g, to some of the visions, 
&c., mentioned in Genetis and Ezodns. This is 
the favourite ground of the earlier writers, 
Justin, Irenaeus, and TertuUian ; and it is also 
taken by Epiphanius. Augiutine, however, aban- 
dons the idea that the Person seen in these visions 
was the Divine Son Himself, the views of the 
Alexandrian school having by this time been sup- 
planted by the expositions of Jerome and others. 
Another argument was drawn from passages in 
the poetical and prophetic books of Scripture, 
which speak of the Word, Spirit, and Wisdom of 
God, of the Lord and Son of David, the Lord the 
Me.senger of the Covenant, and the like. For 
sach interpretations a way had been prepared in 
the Jewish mind by the speculations of Philo 
and the Alexandrians, in which is found some 
conception, if not of the divinity, yet of the per^ 
sonality and sonship of the Word (LogosX the 
*' first begotten of the Father," the '* archangel 
of many names," by whom was effected the work 
of creation. This idea, though far removed from 
the Christian doctrine, which at once made the 
Word the coetemal and coequal Son of the Father,, 
and identified Him with the looked-for Messiah, 
yet approached nearly enough to admit of some- 
thing like a common terminology, and doubtless 
much lessened the difficulties of the Apologists. 

The Jews expected that the '* Anointed One," 
for whom they looked, would be a mere man, 
and for their conceptions Jesus was at once too 
lowly and too exalted. The name ** Son of God " 
was not unknown as a title of Messiah, but thev 
had never thought of interpreting it so strictly 
as the Christians did. Hence the Apologists had 
the double task of shewing that the Messiah was 
to be a Divine and supematurally-bom Person, 
and also that of Him, great as He was, were 
prophesied not only the kingdom of glory but also 
a life of humiliation and suffering, and a death 
of shame, exactly like the life and the death of 
Jesus. For the former of these assertions they 
referred to the question of Isai. liii. 8, to the stone 
of Nebuchadnezzai**s dream (Dan. ii. 35, com- 
pared with Isai. xxviii. 16), together with some 
passages of a typical nature ; but laid most street 
on the prophecy of the Virgin's Son, Isai. viii. 10- 
16 (Justin and Irenaeus), meeting the Jewish 




readerittg of " girl " for ** yirgin " by an appeal 
to the LXX. «nd to the context as implying that 
the birth, being called a "sign/' must be an 
treat of extraordinary nature. Irenaeus (cont, 
ffaer. iii. 21) contends that the restitution ot 
mankind when fallen could only have been 
effected through One whose body, like Adam's, 
was formed anew and o( virgin-Mrth. Another 
mode of proving the divine personality of Messiah, 
wiu by shewing that the Scriptures identified 
Him with the Word, to Whom, as had already 
been argued, were given the incommunicable 
names of Jehovah, U>rd, and God. That this 
I H viae Messiah was to be despised and crucified, 
the Apologists maintained by applying to Him 
many passages which the Jews of earlier times 
would pro^ly have allowed to be Messianic, 
wherein they pointed out His descent from 
David, 1 Chron. zviu. 4, 11, Isai. zi. 1 ; His birth 
in Bethlehem; His humiliation and sufferings, 
Isai. IxT. 3, Jer. zi. 19, Deut. zzviii. 66, Zeph. i. 
7. 4c. ; and His resurrection, Ps. zvi. 10 and Ps. 
zxzi^ Hoa. vL 2, £z. ziz. 10, kc ; besides which 
they adduced various types, e.g. the offering of 
baac, the sale of Joseph, the elevation of the 
brazen serpent fon a crots as they believed), and 
the sacrifices of the Law, specially those of the 
Day of Atonement. And further to reconcile the 
Jews to the idea of a crucified Messiah, they 
shewed that the curse on him " that hangeth on 
a tree " was upon Him for others' sins, not His 
own, besides being specially predictive of the 
rejection which it should procure Him from the 
people of Israel. Moreover, the lowlin^s of 
Je>u» was no way contrary to the prophecies of 
His glorious kingdom, for these were to be ful- 
filled at His second advent; and His present 
ezAlUtion to the right-hand of the Father was 
attested by the conquering progress of His 
Church, in spite of every effort for its destruc- 
tioB, and by the spiritual gifts and powers with 
which He continued to endow it; while not only 
had prophecy, once possessed by the Jews, ceased 
■imong them, but their temple and city were 
fl<^1»troyed, their worship was at an end, and they 
vere suffering the very judgments which had 
tnren threatened of old as the penalties of apostasy 
from God. The Apologists do not remain wholly 
oa the defensive, but charge the Jews with 
tj^roal conceptioui of God (Just. Dial. c. Tryph, 
c. 141, p. ^Ul D — so Origen, Eusebius, and Cyril), 
ani of His worship; with trusting to their de- 
scent from Abraham and knowledge of the Law, 
fur pardon of Bin {Diai. c. Tryph. c. 141, p. 370 D ) ; 
aai with the allowance of polygamy by their 

VII. Evidences of Chriatianity adduced by the 
Ap:4<kfist$. Of all these, most stress is laid upon 
tilt argument from prophecy: the Christians 
prrjclaimed certain (acts and doctrines concern- 
m; the Lord Jesus and His Church, all which 
A^'peared to be the fulfilment and explanation of 
predictions uttered ages before by men of the 
Hebrew nation. But God alone could thus fore- 
t-tl the future; it was He, therefore, who by 
Hi5 prophcta had at once revealed and attested 
trie mission of His Son. It was easy to shew that 
the predictions in question were really anterior 
to the evcat ; as fm this purpose it was only 
aeceaaary to nftr to the known date of the Sep- 
tosgiat tnaslatioB. Some of the Apologists, 
however, go more folly into this subject, in 
atftur. BiooE. 

order, further, to meet the objection that Chrb- 
tianity was a novelty (Theophilus, ad AutoL 
iii. c. 16 sqq. ; Tatian, Or. ad Qraeo. c. 31, p. 18 

Modem readers are surprised to see how seem- 
ingly slight allusions are seized by the Apologists, 
and construed with the utmost confidence as types 
or prophecies of Christ. Accustomed to regard 
the purpose of God in Christ as the centre of aU 
His dealings with men, they believed that every 
ray of divine revelation must converge upon it, 
or upon the truths concerning God and His 
nature made known by Christ. Hence they saw 
in every angel who spoke in the Lord's name a 
manifestation of the Angel of the Covenant, in 
every sacrifice that of Christ, in every mention 
of an anointed king a prediction of Messiah's 
reign. The extent of this belief is illustrated 
by the titles prefixed to the Psalms in the Syriao 
and other very early versions, which often assign 
without hesitation a Messianic import to psalmsy 
wherein few would now see any such allusion. 
We may perhaps trace in all this a reminiscence 
of Apostolic days, when the light of ChritUati 
prophecy shone upon the ancient scriptures, 
revealing their typical and Messianic significance 
throughout ; a light which even in the days of 
the earliest Apologists was almost quenched, and 
no longer sufficed for any accurate application of 
details. Yet what had once been seen by it 
could not soon be wholly forgotten ; and hence 
may have originated some of the Apologists' 
general ideas on the reference of all the law and 
the prophets to Christ ; although in particulars 
it is evident that little else than individual fancy 
can have been their guide. 

Miracles, according to the Apologists, are not, 
alone, a sufficient evidence of Divine mission 
(Justin, Apcl. i. c. 30, p. 72 A), but only in con- 
junction with the doctrine purpose and character 
of those who work them {Dial. c. Tryph. c. 7, 
p. 225 a). There is a very marked distinction 
between the use which ancient and modem 
writers make of the argument from miracles. 
The latter have to prove the fact of miraculous 
agency ; the former, chiefly, its degree and cha- 
racter. The early writers, moreover, appeal, not 
only to the miracles wrought by the Lord him- 
self*when on earth (which they commonly adduce 
as fulfilments of prophecy), but also to miracles 
and supernatural gifts of various kinds, still re- 
maining amongst believers. 

The Apologists dwell much on the intemal 
evidence of Christianity, comparing its view of 
God, and of the service which He would accept, 
with the conceptions of paganism, and the lives 
of Christians with those of heathens. Frequent 
reference is made to the power which the Gospel 
possessed of changing the life and character of 
those who received it, however ignorant and 
I vicious they might have been before ; whereas 
philosophy gave up such ca.«es as hopeless, and 
never so much. as attempted to influence the poor 
and unlettered masses, which Christianity was 
winning over by thousands to wisdom and holi- 

As the doctrine of a general resurrection was 
of all Christian tenets the most new and start- 
ling, several Apologists treat this subject by 
itself; meeting the objections that the scattered 
j atoms of one human body might afterwards be- 
* come parts of another (Athenagoras, £€$urr. oa 




4-8), and that the body was essentially the clog 
and prison of the soul, which could only be per- 
fect when freed from it. To the former they 
answered (/. c.) that everything once taken in as 
food was not necessarily assimilated and made a 
permanent constituent of the body ; particularly 
if, like human flesh, it were a revolting and un- 
natural aliment; and to the latter, that the 
Creator's purpose in making man embraced his 
whole being, and could only be fulfilled by its 
permanence as a whole; and that it was only 
this mortal body that hindered the soul ; that of 
the resurrection would be its apt instrument for 
good. By way of illustration we find allusions 
to the Stoic doctrine of the recurrence of all 
things in endless cycles (Tatian, Or, ad Graec. 
c. 6, p. 145 d), to the resuscitated heroes of my- 
thology (Theophilus, ad Autol. c 13, p. 77 c), 
and to various retumings, renewals, and alter- 
nations in natural things, e,g. of the seasons, 
day and night, waking and sleeping ; also to the 
phenomena of birth and growth in animals and 

Jlants (Theophilus and Athenagoras; see also 
ust. FVagm. de Resurr. c 2, p. 589 a). 
VIII. Doctrine, ^c. The doctrine of the Trinity 
is stated by the Apologists in its bearing on crea- 
tion and redemption, and so guarded as not to 
appear a denial of the unity of God, a caution 
most needful in dealing with polytheists. Theo- 
philus (ad Autol, i. c 3, p. 71 A; ii. c. 15, p. 
94 d) speaks of the Son as the Power and Word 
(or Reason), and the Holy Ghost as the Wisdom, 
of the Father; under which abstract terms a 
real Trinity of Persons is certainly intended, as 
appears from the enumeration of the Three, of 
Whom the First and the Second are necessarily 
Persons, in Theophilus (/. c.) ; cf. Athenag. Apd, 
c. 10, p. 10; where we ai*e also told, that the 
assumption by the Son of the otfice of Word or 
Revealer of the Father was not His coming into 
existence, for that He had existed in God from 
eternity ; and so, it is implied, did the Holy 
Spirit, the Wisdom of God ; forasmuch as God 
was possessed of Wisdom from all eternity. In 
reference to God*s dealings with His creatures, the 
Son is He who manifested Himself and the Father 
to men (Justin, Dial, c. Tryph.\ the Blessed 
Spirit, He Who inspired the prophets (id. c. 87 
sqq.). Rightly to apprehend the Apologists' 
meaning, on this and other essential tenets of 
Christianity, it is important to study them in 
connection with the known ancieflt beliefs of the 
Church, and not in isolation, as if each had 
reasoned out for himself an independent creed. 

The person bom of the blessed Virgin is always, 
according to the Apologists, the Divine Word 
Himself (cf. the later term "Theotokos," or 
" Mother of God ") ; the divine and human 
natures, however, being distinguished ; for when 
Jesus died on the cross, the Godhead died not 
(Minucius Felix, Octavius, c. 29; Amobius, adv, 
Gentesj i. 62). Of the purpose of the Incarna- 
tion, they say in general terms, that He came to 
mise up man from the Fall and put away sin ; 
that salvation, for men of all generations, de- 
pended on Him, and on His death ; that His 
Blood washed away sin (Just. Dial, c, Tryph. c. 
Ill, p. 338 c), and was applied by faith (i6. c 
13, p. 229 d) and in baptism (i6. c. 14, p. 231 c ; 
Apol, L c. 61, p. 94 c ; Theoph. ad Autol, ii. c 
16, p. 97 b). In this remission they include re- 
lease from the guilt, power, and punishment of 

sin; in justification, the imputing and the im- 
parting of Christ's righteousness. The sacrificial 
character of Christ's death is directly stated by 
Justin (Ditd, c. Tryph. c 40, p. 259 c), but more 
often indicated by its being made antitypical to 
the sacrifices of the law. 

The hope of the second Advent is largely 
insisted on, sometimes with allusions to the 
Apocalyptic 1st and 2nd Resurrections and 
Millennium following it (Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 
c 80, and TertuUian and Lactantius), and to the 
terrible sufferings to be endured previously by 
the Church, under Antichrist, who was not to 
appear so long as the Roman empire stood; a 
belief referred to by TertuUian {Apol. c. 32) as 
a reason why Christians could not be disloyal 

Justin alone gives any details of Christian 
worship and observances. By him great pro- 
minence is given to Baptism and the holy Eucha- 
rist, the one as admitting believers to the benefits 
of the New Covenant, the other as the Church's 
spiritual sustenance and greatest act of worship. 
In the other writers such notices are incidental 
only ; but, so far as they go, these indicate no 
dissimilarity of view. When baptism is spoken 
of, that of a convert is almost always intended ; 
its administration to Christians' children is not 
mentioned. Eucharistic worship seems to be the 
only observance of the Lord's Day to which the 
Apologists allude. 

The earlier Apologists assert the freedom of 
the will, both in angels and in men, as the only 
possible foundation of moral responsibility. Their 
view of man's natural condition we gather from 
their account of the degradation of heathenism, 
the helplessness of philosophy without revela- 
tion, and the power possessed by Satan over 
mankind : from this condition baptism frees us 
(Justin, Apol. i. c. 61, p. 94 c). 

A growing asceticism is very apparent (vid. He- 
fele's Beitrage, vol. i. lect. 2) : second marriages 
are strongly condemned ; celibacy is highly com- 
mended, and often mentioned, by way of con- 
trasting the Christians' real moderation, even in 
lawful things, with the excesses ascribed to them 
by their enemies. The horror, not only of 
gladiatorial shows, but of all bloodshed, ex- 
pressed by Athenagoras, leads one to suppose 
that he would have thought the profession of 
arms unlawful ; but this was not a universal 
scruple (Tertull. Apolog. c. 42). Slavery was 
not disallowed by the Christians of this period. 

IX. Remarks. The Apologies properly so called, 
such, for instance, as those of Justin and Athe- 
nagoras, are mostly of Greek authorship, almost 
the only works of exactly similar character 
amongst the Latins being those of TertuUian. 
Of books against the Jews the East was na- 
turally rather more prolific than the West; 
while the Latins contribute the larger portion of 
those treatises which were written near the time 
when Christianity became the faith of the Em- 
pire, and which collect and systematize the 
entire argument against paganism. In the Greek 
Apologists we seem to distinguish an earlier 
stage of Christian thought, with language as 
yet unfixed by the controversies with heretics, 
and sometimes nearly the phraseology of Scrip- 
ture {e.g. Theophilus), sometimes that of the old 
philosophy (Athenagoras). The Greek is oftett 
still the philosopher, become Christian indeed. 



but retaining the old gar5 and style ; the Latin, 
often in the set style of the rhetorician, cri- 
timea, fitTonrably or otherwise, the Gentile 
philosophy as already become almost a thing of 
the past. The distinction which there had been 
between Grecian and Roman philosophy seems to 
hold, at least in some measure, between the 
Christian Apologetic of the East and that of the 

Of the effect of these efforts to allay persecu- 
tion rery little is known. Jerome, indeed, re- 
presentj those of Qnadratus and Aristides as 
baring concurred with a letter of Serenus Gra- 
aianoa, in producing the rescript of Hadrian to 
llinudns Kundanus, which is given at the end of 
Jostin's second ApUogy, The rescript, however, 
does not appear in any way more favourable to 
the Christians than was that of Trajan to Pliny. 
Tertullian's fierce attacks upon heathenism, far 
from bettering the condition of the Christians, 
would rather seem to hare provoked the hostile 
edict of Septimius Severus, promulgated A.D. 
2<j2, jnat after their publication, by which con- 
version to Christianity was forbidden. Perhaps, 
thoQgh addressed to the authorities, the Apolo- 
Kiea may have found more response from the 
people, and even when unstccessful in averting 
persecution may hare helped to swell the number 
of those who encountered it under the banner of 
the Cross. 

The following writers may be consulted in 
reference to the Apologists: J. Alb. Fabricius, 
[tt VeritaU Rdig. Chri$tianae ; K. Werner, Apolo- 
•i€ti$che LUeratur; J. A Mohler, Fatrologie ; 
('. J. Uefele, Beitrage ; Migne, Patrologie ; H. 
<fOttlieb Tschimer, Apologetik and FcUl des Hei- 
tientkmMM; the Abbe' Freppel, Apologistes Chr^ 
tiens ov lime Siide; J. Ireland, Faganmn and 
*lui9tianity compared; Jeremie, Hiat. of the 
' Vtff. Church in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries ; J. 
Donaldson, ffitL of Christ. Literature. [S. M.] 

APOSTLES. The hUtory of the Apostles 
after the New Testament period is given under 
Acts of th£ ApoerLES, Apocbypual. 

STITUTIONS. [See DicT. of Ciiriot. Ant. 
1. cr.] 

'if the term. The adjective Apostolicus (Airo- 
iTToAiKOff) is used to denote either morally or 
loctrinally accordance with the Apostles, or 
tiistorically connexion with the Apostles. In 
this latter sense it is especially applied to 
Churches founded directly by Apostles, or to 
fiersons associated with and taught by Ajiostles. 
The former are Apottolicae ecclesiae ; the latter 
Aptfttoiici viri^ or Apottoiici simply. See espe- 
• ially Tertull. de Praewcr. 32, ** ut primus ille 
rpiscopos aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis 
viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, 
habnerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim 
modo ecclesiae apostolicae census suos deferunt, 
•icut Smymaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab 
I«tanne collocatnm refert, sicut Romanorum 
Clementero a Petro ordinatum itidem," with the 
whole context. Cf. also de Praeecr. 20, 21 ; 
<idv. Marc i. 21, v. 2; de Cam, Chr. 2; de 
I'udir, 21. Hence among the Evangelists, while 
St. Matthew and St. John are Apostoli, St. Mark 
and St. Lnke are Apottolici (adv. Marc. iv. 2). 
In aeooitUDoe with this usage the term Apostolic 

Fathers is confined to those who are known, or 
may reasonably be presumed, to have associated 
with and derived their teaching directly from 
some Apostle. 

Thus it has been used with more or less lati- 
tude, in accordance with the historical views of 
the writer who employs it. In its widest range 
it will, in the present state of criticism, include 
Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarp, 
Papias, and the writer of the. epistle to Diogne- 
tus. At an earlier stage the works of IMonysiuF 
the Areopagite would have claimed a place 
among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, but 
these are now universally condemned as spurious. 
The same is the case with other Apocryphal 
works, which for the same reason may be 
neglected from our consideration. But though 
the writings ascribed to the persons whose 
names are included in the above list may all 
be accepted as genuine, yet in some instances 
they fail to satisfy other conditions, which alone 
entitle to a place among the works of the Apo- 
stolic Fathers. Thus the " Shepherd" of Hermas 
has been placed in this category, because it was 
supposed to have been written by the person of 
this name mentioned by St. Paul (Rom. xvi. 14; 
see Origen ad loc. Op. iv. 683); but a more 
authentic tradition ascribes it to the brother of 
Pius, who was bishop of Rome a little before 
the middle of the 2nd century {Canon. Murat. 
p. 58, ed. Tregelles ; see pseudo-Tertull. Poem, 
adv. Marc. iii. 294, in Tertull. Op. ii. 792 ed. 
Oehler). Thus again the claim of Papias to 
be considered an Apostolic Father rests on the 
supposition that he was a disciple of St. John 
the Evangelist, as Irenaeus apparently imagines 
(Haer. v. 33. 4) ; but Eusebius has pointed out 
that Irenaeus was mistaken, and that the teacher 
of Papias was not the Apostle St. John but the 
Presbyter of the same name {H. E. iii. 39). 
Again, there is some uncertainty about the 
Epistle to Diognctus. Its claim is founded on nn 
expression which occurs in § 11, and which hiia 
been interpreted literally as implying that the 
writer was a personal disciple of one or other of 
the Apostles. But in the first place^ the context 
shows that this literal interpretation is out of 
place, and the passage must be explained as 
follows : " I do not make any strange state- 
ments nor indulge in unreasonable questionings, 
but having learnt my lessons from the Apostles 
(lit. having become a disciple of Apostles), 
I stand forward as a teacher of the nations" 
(ov {cVa 6/AiA« obZ^ wapah6yws Cv^&, oAA^ 
airo<rr6Xttt> '}ty6fityos fioBririis yivofieu 8i8(i(r- 
iroAot i9¥Sfw)\ and secondly, this is no part of 
the Epistle to IHugnetus proper (§§ 1-10), but 
belongs to a later writing, which has been acci- 
dentally attached to the Epistle, owing to the 
loss of some leaves in the MS. This latter fact 
is conclusive. If therefore the Epistle has any 
title to a place among the Apostolic Fathers, it 
must be established by internal evidence ; and, 
though the internal character suggests an early 
date, perhaps as early as about A.D. 117 (see 
Westcott, Qxnon p. 79), yet there is no hint of 
any historical connexion between the writer and 
the Apostles. Lastly, the so-called Epistle of 
Barnabas occupies an unique position. If the 
writer had been the companion of St. Paul, who 
bore that name, then he would more properly 
be stvled, not an "apostolic man," as K« \a ^ 




Bignated by Clement of Alexandria {Strom, ii. 20, 
p. 489, 6 kiroarroXuchs BoprdjBaf), but an 
** apostle/' as tbe same Clement elsewhere styles 
him (^Strom, ii. 6, p. 445 ; ii. 7, p. 447) in ac- 
cordance with St. Lake's language (Acts ziv. 14). 
Bat, if the writer be not the Apostle Barnabas, 
then we have no eridence of any personal 
relations with the Apostles, though such is not 
impossible, as the Epistle must have been written 
at some date between the age of Vespasian and 
that of Nerva. 

After these deductions only three names re- 
main, Clement, Ignatias, and Polycarp; and in 
none of these cases is there reasonable ground for 
hesitation. Though the identification of this 
Clement with the person named by St. Paul 
(Phil. iv. 3) is less than probable, though the 
authority of the Clementine romance is worth- 
less to establish his connexion with St. Peter, yet 
the tradition that he was a disciple of one or 
both of these Apostles is early, constant, and 
definite ; and it is borne out by the character and 
contents of his genuine Epistle. See especially 
Irenaeus (iii. 3. 3), who speaks very definitely to 
this point, and yet says nothing of his identifi- 
cation with the Clement of the Epistle to the 
Philippians. Again, the early date of Ignatius 
and his connexion with Antioch, a chief centre 
of Apostolic activity, render his personal con- 
nexion with the Apostles probable ; and tradition 
more especially represents him as a disciple of 
St. John, though it were to be wished that we 
had some early authority for this statement less 
questionable than the doubtful Martyrdom of 
Ignatius (§§ 1, 3). Lastly, Polycarp's claim to 
the title seems indisputable, since his own pupil 
Irenaeus states that he was a scholar of the 
beloved disciple, and that he himself had heard 
from his master many anecdotes of this Apostle, 
which he had carefully stored up in his memory 
{Epist. ad Florin, in Euseb. H. E. v. 20 ; cf. 
Haer. iii. 3, 4). 

2. Form of their toritings. All the genuine 
writings of these three Apostolic Fathers are 
epistolary in form, modelled more or less after 
the pattern of the Canonical Epistles, especially 
those of St. Paul, but called forth by pressing 
temporary needs. In no case is any literary 
motive prominent. A famous teacher writes 
in the name of the community over which he 
presides to quell the dissensions of a distant but 
friendly Church. An aged disciple on his way 
to martyrdom pours out a few parting words of 
exhortation to the Christian brotherhoods with 
whom he is brought in contact during his jour- 
ney. A bishop of a leading Church, having occa- 
sion to send a parcel to another brotherhood at 
a distance, takes the opportunity of writing, in 
answer to their solicitations, a few plain words of 
advice and instruction. Such is the simple 
account of the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and 
Polycarp respectively. 

And even if we extend the term " Apostolic 
Fathers," so as to include the two other writings 
which alone have any claim to this title, the same 
form is preserved. The Epistle of Barnabas and 
the Letter to Diognetus are no departui-e from 
the rule. But, though the form is preserved, 
the spirit is somewhat different. They no longer 
represent the natural outpouring of personal 
feeling, arising out of personal relations; but 
are rather treatises clothed in an epistolary 

dress, the aim of the one being polemical, of the 
other apologetic. In this respect they resemble 
the Epistle to the Hebrews more than the letters 
of St. Paul. 

3. Their character, " The Apostolic Fathers," 
says De Pressens^ " are not great writers, but 
great characters" {Trots Premiers SiecieSj ii. 
384). Their style is loose ; there is a want of 
arrangement in the topics, and an absence of 
system in their teaching. On the one hand they 
present a marked contrast to the depth and clear- 
ness of conception with which the several Aposto- 
lic writers place before us different aspects of the 
Gospel, and by which their title to a special in- 
spiration is established. On the other, they lack 
the scientific spirit which distinguished the 
Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries, and which 
enabled them tu formulate the doctrines of the 
faith as a bulwark against unbridled speculation. 
But though they are deficient in distinctness of 
conception and power of exposition, " this in- 
feriority " to the later Fathers " is amply com- 
pensated by a certain naivete and simplicity 
which forms the charm of their letters. If they 
have not the precision of the scientific spirit, 
they are free from its narrowness." There is a 
breadth of moral sympathy, an earnest sense of 
personal responsibility, a fervour of Christian 
devotion, which is the noblest testimony to the 
influence of the Gospel on characters obviously 
very diverse, and which will always command 
for their writings a respect to which their lite- 
rary merits could lay no claim. The gentleness 
and serenity of Clement, whose whole spirit 
IS absorbed in contemplating the harmonies 
of nature and of grace ; the fiery zeal of Igna- 
tius, in whom the one over-mastering desire of 
martyrdom has crushed all human passion ; the 
unbroken constancy of Polycarp, whose pro- 
tracted life is spent in maintaining the faith once 
delivered to the saints : — these are lessons which 
can never become antiquated or lose their value. 

4. Their relation to the Apostolic Teaching and 
to the Canonical Scriptures, If we had to describe 
briefly the respective provinces of the Apostolic 
Fathers, we might say that it was the work of 
Clement to co-ordinate the diflerent elements of 
Christian teaching as left by the Apostles; and 
of Ignatius to consolidate the structure of eccle- 
siastical polity, as sketched out by them ; while for 
Polycarp, whose active career was just beginning 
as theirs ended, and who lived on for more than 
half a century after their deaths, was reserved 
the task of handing down unimpaired to a later 
generation the Apostolic doctrine and order thus 
co-ordinated and consolidated by his elder con- 
temporaries — a task for which he was eminently 
fitted by his passive and receptive character. 

The writings of all these three Fathers lie 
well within the main stream of ('atholic teach- 
ing. They are the proper link between the 
Canonical Scriptures and the Church Fathers of 
the ages succeeding them. They recognise all 
the diflerent elements of the Ajiostolic teaching, 
though they combine them in diflerent proportions. 
**They prove that Christianity was Catholic 
from the very first, uniting a variety of forms in 
one faith. They show that the great facts of 
the Gospel narrative, and the substance of the 
Apostolic letters, formed the basis and moulded 
the expression of the common creed " (Westcott, 
Canon p. 55). 




But when we turn to the other writings for 
which a place amont; the Apostolic Fathers has 
been claimed, the case is difTerent. Though the 
writers are all apparently within the pale of the 
Church, yet there is a tendency to that one- 
sided exaggeration— either in the direction of 
Judaism, or the opposite — which stands on the 
rery rerge of heresy. In the Epistle of Barna- 
bas and in the Letter to Diognetus, the repulsion 
to Judaism is so violent, that one step further 
would have carried the writers into Gnostic or 
liarcionite dualism. On the other hand, in the 
*^ Shepherd '* of Hennas, and possibly in the 
** £xp<Mitions " of Papias (for in this instance 
the inferences drawn from a few scanty fragments 
must be precarious), the sympathy with the Old 
Dispensjition is unduly strong, and the distinctive 
features of the Gospel are darkened by the shadow 
of the Law thus projected upon them. In Cle- 
ment, Ignatius, and Polycarp, both extremes alike 
are avoided. 

For the relation of these writers to the Canoni- 
cal Scriptures the reader is referred to the 
thorough investigation in Westcott's History of 
the Ctnoriy pp. ld-55. It will be sutfident here 
to state the more important results to which we 
are leJ : (1) The Apostolic Fathers do not, as a 
rule, quote by name the Canonical writings of 
the New Tesiament. The exceptions however 
are just what we should expect to find. Cle- 
ment, writing to the Corinthians, refers to 
St. Paul's Epistle to that Church (§ 47); Igna- 
tius, addressing the Ephesians (if the shorter 
Greek be accepted as genuine), speaks of their 
having been initiated in company with St. Paul, 
and refers to the letter (or letters) in which the 
Apostle mentions them (§ 12 iy wd(rp ^iricrroX^, 
which has been differently interpreted); Poly- 
carp, writing to the Philippians, in like manner 
calls attention to the instructions which St. Paul 
had given them by letter (§3 iwwif ufuy fypa^ty 
iwicroXat k. r. A..). But (2), though (with these 
exctrptiouK) the books of the New Testament 
are not quoted by name, fi*af;ments of most 
of the Canonical Epistles lie imbedded in the 
v:riting.< of these Fathers, whose language is 
th'.roughly leavened with the Apostolic diction. 
In like manner the facts of the Gospel history are 
referred to, and the wonU of our Lord given, 
though for the mot^t [tart not as direct quota- 
tiuDs. For (3) there is no decisive evidence that 
thc<e Fathers recognised a Canon of the New 
Testament, as a distinctly defined body of 
writings; though Barnabas once introduces our 
LonlV words as recorded in Matt. xx. 16, 
XX ii. 14, with the usual formula of Scriptural 
Citation, *' As it is written (Jti ytypawrat)**. 
But (4) on the other hand they assign a special 
■lad pre-eminont authority to the Apostles which 
theur di^tinctlv diM:laim for themselves. This is 
the c:i>e with Clement (§§ 5,