somewhat dependent upon the Greeks, especially Athanasius,
       Didymus and Basil. His expositions of Old Testament histories
       (_Hexaëmeron_, _De Paradiso_, _De Cain et Abel_, _De Noë
       et arca_, _De Abraham_, _De Jacob et anima_, etc.) are
       allegorical and typical in the highest degree. More important
       are his _Sermones_ and 92 Epistles. But all his writings are
       distinguished by their noble, powerful and popular eloquence.

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

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

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

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

  § 47.17.

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

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

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

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

  § 47.19. =Augustine’s Works.=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  § 47.21. =Pelagians and semi-Pelagians.=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      § 48. BRANCHES OF THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN POETRY.

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

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

  § 48.3. =Systematic Theology.=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               IV. DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES AND HERESIES.

              § 49. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE GENERALLY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               § 52. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY.[159]

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

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

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

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

  § 52.4. =The Monophysite Controversy.=

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

  § 52.5.

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

  § 52.6.

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

  § 52.7.

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

  § 52.8. =The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.=--The
  increasing political embarrassments of the emperor made a
  union with the Monophysites all the more desirable. The emperor
  Heraclius, A.D. 611-641, was advised to attempt a union of
  parties under the formula: that Christ accomplished His work
  of redemption by the exercise of one divine human will (μιᾷ
  θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ). Several Catholic bishops found nothing
  objectionable in this formula which had already been used by
  the Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 47, 11). In A.D. 633 the patriarchs
  Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria on the basis
  of this concluded a treaty, in consequence of which most of